DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 50-58 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 8/11/2025.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-49 in the reply filed on 8/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 4/25/2022, 3/20/2025, and 4/30/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8-12, 14-19, 26-30, 32-35, and 42-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hawke et al. (9265412), hereinafter Hawke.
Regarding claims 1, 19, and 35, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58) comprising the steps of: presenting a visual display to an individual that has been generated using a grating pattern having a spatial frequency (col. 7, lines 5-35 and col. 9, lines 23-27), at least a first portion of which has a first duty cycle and at least a second portion of which has a second duty cycle different than the first duty cycle (shape of letter; col. 7, lines 5-11), wherein said second portion is in the form of a predetermined shape, wherein the second duty cycle is selected such that a presbyopic individual when viewing at a preselected range of distances within which said individual cannot adequately accommodate can see the predetermined shape, whereas the object is substantially camouflaged to a non-prebyotic individual (col. 5, lines 24-29, col. 8, lines 56-67, and col. 9, lines 1-23); and obtaining from said individual an indication of whether said individual can see said predetermined shape (col. 9, lines 2-7).
Regarding claims 8, 26, and 44, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein said visual display further includes a second object at a location other than over said predetermined shape, wherein the second object does not include a grating pattern and is visible to both presbyopes and non-presbyopes (figures 4-6 and 10).
Regarding claims 9, 27, and 45, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the grating pattern consists of lines that are straight, diagonal, triangular, wavy, circular or a combination thereof (figures 5 and 6).
Regarding claims 10, 28, and 46, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the grating pattern consists of zigzag lines (figure 3).
Regarding claims 11, 29, and 47, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the predetermined shape is that of one or more alphanumeric characters (figures 4 and 5).
Regarding claims 12, 30, and 48, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the predetermined shape is that of a living or inanimate object, or collection of objects (col. 6, lines 66-67 and col. 7, lines 1-4).
Regarding claims 14 and 32, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the visual display is presented on a substantially flat backing material (col. 10, lines 39-54).
Regarding claims 15 and 33, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the substantially flat backing material is paper, a poster, poster board or picture board (col. 10, lines 49-51).
Regarding claims 16 and 34, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the substantially flat backing material is poster board (col. 10, lines 49-51).
Regarding claim 17, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the visual display is presented on an electronic screen (col. 10, lines 39-54).
Regarding claim 18, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the electronic screen is a computer screen, mobile device screen or tablet screen (col. 10, lines 39-54).
Regarding claim 42, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the electronic screen is a computer monitor or television (col. 10, lines 39-54).
Regarding claim 43, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the electronic screen is a mobile phone screen, tablet screen, or other portable electronic device screen (col. 10, lines 39-54).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 2-7, 13, 20-25, 31, 36-41, and 49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hawke et al. (9265412), hereinafter Hawke.
Regarding claims 2, 20, and 36, Hawke discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Hawke discloses typically covering a range of spatial frequencies and orientations (col. 9, lines 2-7) but does not disclose wherein the spatial frequency is greater than 2 cm-1 and less than 6 cm-1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the spatial frequency is greater than 2 cm-1 and less than 6 cm-1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955) for the purpose of seeing the text in perspective.
Regarding claims 3, 21, and 37, Hawke discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Hawke discloses typically covering a range of spatial frequencies and orientations (col. 9, lines 2-7) but does not disclose wherein the spatial frequency is about 3.33 cm-1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the spatial frequency is about 3.33 cm-1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955) for the purpose of seeing the text in perspective.
Regarding claims 4, 22, and 38, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the second duty cycle represents an increase in contrast of between 1 and 10 percent compared to the first duty cycle (col. 4, lines 2-22) but does not specifically disclose wherein the spatial frequency is greater than 2 cm-1 and 6 cm-1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the spatial frequency is greater than 2 cm-1 and less than 6 cm-1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955) for the purpose of seeing the text in perspective.
Regarding claims 5, 23, and 39, Hawke discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Hawke discloses typically covering a range of spatial frequencies and orientations (col. 9, lines 2-7) but does not disclose wherein the spatial frequency is about 3.33 cm-1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to wherein the spatial frequency is about 3.33 cm-1, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955) for the purpose of seeing the text in perspective.
Regarding claims 6, 24, and 40, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the second duty cycle represents an increase in contrast of between 3 and 10 percent compared to the first duty cycle (col. 4, lines 2-22).
Regarding claims 7, 25, and 41, Hawke discloses a method for identifying a potential presbyope (col. 7, lines 54-58), wherein the increase in contrast is about 5 percent (col. 4, lines 2-22).
Regarding claims 13, 31, and 49, Hawke discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Hawke does not specifically disclose wherein the predetermined shape is that of a tear drop.
It would have been obvious to modify the invention to include wherein the predetermined shape is that of a tear drop, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the shape of a component. A change in shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872