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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed 10/27/2025 have been fully considered.
Regarding the Claim Interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f), applicant’s amendments to claim 1 addresses the interpretation for “control unit” and “input device;” thus overcoming the interpretation.
Regarding the Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C 112(b), the applicant’s amendments have overcome the rejection.
Regarding 35 USC 103 rejection, the applicant argues, on page 10 to 11 that Tate does not teach the following:
the apparatus showing a visual stimulus to the subject;
the optical system being configured to provide an optical power that is continuously variable as a function of time; and
circuitry configured to drive the optical power of the optical system and an input device configured to record a response of the subject relative to a sharpness of the visual stimulus seen through the optical system, wherein
the circuitry is configured to drive the optical power of the optical system at an initial maximum positive value, to decrease the optical power from the initial maximum positive value to a first minimum value, with a first speed of variation,
the input device is configured to record a first response of the subject at a first time instant corresponding to a first optical power value relative to a first sharpness, the first optical power value being comprised between the initial maximum positive value and the first minimum value,
the circuitry is configured to increase the optical power from the first minimum value to a second maximum value below the initial maximum positive value and then to decrease the optical power from the second maximum value to a second minimum value,
the subject adjusting or the circuitry is configured to adjust a speed of variation of the optical power between the second maximum value and the second minimum value, as a function of the response recorded relative to the first sharpness, the speed of variation representing how the circuitry or the subject changes the optical power as a function of time,
the input device being configured to record a second response of the subject at a second time instant corresponding to a second optical power value of the optical system relative to a second sharpness, the second optical power value being comprised between the second maximum value and the second minimum value, and
the calculation circuitry is configured to determine the at least one visual refraction feature of the subject as a function of the first response and the second response of the subject.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and Tate does teach the following:
The apparatus showing a visual stimulus to the subject:
Figure 2 illustrates the apparatus for automatically measuring refractive error of the eyes of a subject (200). The subject (200) views the test symbols (206), which is shown on the screen (202), through an optical system, which is controlled by the processor 100.
The optical system being configured to provide an optical power that is continuously variable as a function of time:
An objective refraction measurement is first made, then a subjective refraction measurement is performed (column 8, lines 9-10), and test symbols are presented alternately to the subject. The subject views the test symbols through a continuously variable optical system controlled by the automatic data processing equipment. The optical system is controlled to provide one power setting for the first symbol presented and a different power setting (Prescription) for the second symbol presented. The subject indicates a preference for the first or second presented symbol based on sharpness and visual clarity of the symbol, by operating a manual response device identifying the choice. The subject's response is then used by the data processing equipment to automatically control the power settings of the optical systems for subsequently presented test symbols (column 6, lines 50-64).
Circuitry configured to drive the optical power of the optical system and an input device configured to record a response of the subject relative to a sharpness of the visual stimulus seen through the optical system:
Tate teaches the processor (100) drives the optical system and the input device is the processor. When the subject views the test symbol, they respond through the patient response unit (122), and the processor records the subject’s response. For example, the subject can use the patient response unit (122) to indicate a preference for one of a pair of test symbols that may be clearer than another.
The circuitry is configured to drive the optical power of the optical system at an initial maximum positive value, to decrease the optical power from the initial maximum positive value to a first minimum value, with a first speed of variation:
Tate teaches Figure 14, a subprogram within Figures 8A-D for testing visual acuity. Figure 14 illustrates that each eye is measured at a positive value until both eyes have reached the same clarity. Once both eyes view the visual image with the same clarity, the system decreases the positive correction of the current reference prescription until the retinal image quality is optimized.
The input device is configured to record a first response of the subject at a first time instant corresponding to a first optical power value relative to a first sharpness, the first optical power value being comprised between the initial maximum positive value and the first minimum value:
Tate teaches the processor (100) records the subject’s response from Figure 14. As previously mentioned, Figure 14 is a subprogram within Figures 8A-D for testing visual acuity. Figure 14 illustrates that each eye is measured at a positive value until both eyes have reached the same clarity. Once both eyes view the visual image with the same clarity, the system decreases the positive correction of the current reference prescription until the retinal image quality is optimized.
The circuitry is configured to increase the optical power from the first minimum value to a second maximum value below the initial maximum positive value and then to decrease the optical power from the second maximum value to a second minimum value:
Tate teaches in Figure 14 the power is changed between the left eye and the right eye until both eyes show no clarity; then the optical power is decreased. Tate teaches the process in Figure 14 is repeated when the subject shows uncertainty based on their results. One skilled in the art can understand that this process, as shown in Figure 14, will need to be repeated until the subject selects the optical power that shows the most clarity.
The subject adjusting or the circuitry is configured to adjust a speed of variation of the optical power between the second maximum value and the second minimum value, as a function of the response recorded relative to the first sharpness, the speed of variation representing how the circuitry or the subject changes the optical power as a function of time:
Tate teaches the subject can adjust their speed of variation through the manual response device (122). Based on the subject’s selection, the processor (100) records their response on the clarity of the test symbol and changes the optical power during the examination.
The input device being configured to record a second response of the subject at a second time instant corresponding to a second optical power value of the optical system relative to a second sharpness, the second optical power value being comprised between the second maximum value and the second minimum value:
Tate teaches, within Figures 8A-D, that the subject goes through various rounds of optical power values until the subject is satisfied with the test symbol retinal image quality is optimized. Therefore, one skilled in the art can recognize that the subject may experience a plurality of sharpness, optical power, maximum/minimum values until the test symbol retinal image quality is optimized. During each round, the subject’s response is recorded by the processor.
The calculation circuitry is configured to determine the at least one visual refraction feature of the subject as a function of the first response and the second response of the subject:
Tate teaches, within Figures 8A-D, the processor (100) records the subject’s response through the response unit (122). After a first round of responses, if the test symbol retinal image quality is not optimized, the process will be repeated again until the subject is satisfied with the outcome of the test symbol retinal image quality.
Additionally, the applicant’s arguments references additional elements which fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the first instance/optical power/sharpness and the second instance/optical power/sharpness are measured on each eye with the same visual stimulus, that power changes smoothly, that the system doesn’t involve a change in gaze direction of the subject) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the applicant's arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Response to Amendment
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “calculation circuitry” and “circuitry” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: calculation circuitry and input circuitry in claim 1, and circuitry in claims 1, 9, 10, 14, and 15.
Claim 1 recites “calculation circuitry.” The limitation has been interpreted under 112f as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural generic placeholder term “calculation circuitry” and functional language “determine the at least one visual refraction feature of the subject as a function of the first response and the second response of the subject” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Additionally, claim 1 recites “input circuitry.” The limitation has been interpreted under 112f as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural generic placeholder term “circuitry” and functional language “input” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Lastly, claims 1, 9, 10, 14, and 15 recites “circuitry.” The limitation has been interpreted under 112f as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural generic placeholder term “circuitry” and functional language “drive the optical power” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Claim 1 regarding “input circuitry,” is being interpreted as disclose a button, dimmer, joystick, a physiological signal device, a voice recognition system , computer interface as set forth in Page 4 lines 29-34 to Page 5 lines 1-4.
The following claim limitations within Claim 1, “calculation circuitry,” and “circuitry” cannot be interpreted because the specification fails to adequately disclose structure to perform the claimed function.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding Claims 1, 4-5, 9-16, and 20, the originally filed disclosure fails to provide adequate written description for calculation circuitry and circuitry.
Regarding the calculation circuitry, the disclosure states a calculator that has a similar function to the calculation circuitry as stated in Page 4 lines 21-23:“the calculator is adapted to determine said at least one visual refraction feature of the subject as a function of one or a plurality of responses of the subject.” However, one skilled in the art can understand the function of the calculation circuitry and the calculator are not the same. Additionally, calculation circuitry is not recited within the specification. Therefore, the specification needs a structure that performs how the calculation circuitry determines the visual refraction feature of the subject as a function of the first response and the second response.
Regarding circuitry, the term is not recited within the specification. Because of this, the examiner cannot determine whether “circuitry” is a structural form (hardware) or a program/algorithm (software) within the device.
Due to the specification not reciting sufficient structure and not reciting the terms “calculation circuitry” and “circuitry,” the terms appear to be new matter.
Claims 4-5, 7, 9-14 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 1. Claims 16 and 20 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 15.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “calculation circuitry” and “circuitry” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function of “calculation circuitry” and “circuitry” as described in Claim 1 and 15. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4-5, 7, 9-16, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 4105302 A to Tate.
Regarding Claim 1, Tate discloses an apparatus for determining at least one visual refraction feature of a subject by showing a visual stimulus to the subject (Abstract, apparatus and method provide for automatically measuring the refractive error of a subject's eye and thus the prescription for lens or eye glasses for correcting this error), the apparatus comprising:
an optical system arranged on an optical path between an eye of the subject and the visual stimulus (Figure 2; Column 8 lines 54-56, the subject 200 is positioned a predetermined distance from a test screen 202 on which test letters or symbols are displayed for viewing by the subject),
the optical system being configured to provide an optical power that is continuously variable (Column 5 lines 2-4, provide automatic refraction apparatus and method having an optional system of continuously variable power through which the subject views a test symbol) as a function of time (Column 6 lines 51-53, the subject views the test symbols through a continuously variable optical system controlled by the automatic data processing equipment; Column 6 lines 60-64, The subject's response is then used by the data processing equipment to automatically central the power settings of the optical systems for subsequently presented test symbols);
calculation circuitry (processor – element 100 and computer – element 502);
circuitry (processor – element 100 and computer – element 502; Column 15 lines 46-48, the automatic data processor 100 of FIG. 1 is represented in FIG. 5 by computer and interface circuitry 502) configured to drive the optical power of the optical system (Column 8 lines 48-50, the subject views the test symbols through an optical system, also controlled by the processor 100 and communicates responses to the processor); and
an input device that includes input circuitry (processor – element 100 and computer – element 502; [Examiner’s note, the input device and the input circuitry are the processor.]) and is configured to record recording a response of the subject relative to a sharpness of the visual stimulus seen through the optical system (Abstract, the subject communicates with the data processing equipment via a subject response device to indicate his preference for one or the other of the presented symbols. The data processing system interprets the responses to modify the setting of the optical system, alter the presentation of symbols and elicit another response from the subject. The subjective refraction is continuously monitored by objective refraction to ensure optimization of the refractive correction; Column 26 lines 19-20, the computer records the optical system power preferred by the subject), wherein
the circuitry is configured to drive the optical power of the optical system at an initial maximum positive value (Tate | Column 8 lines 16-18, if the visual acuity is worse, the system is reset to where the retinal image quality and visual acuity are at a maximum), to decrease the optical power from the initial maximum positive value (Tate | Block 1422 within Figure 14; Column 31 lines 27-68 to Column 32 lines 1-2; [Examiner’s note, Figure 14 is a subprogram within Figures 8A-D for testing visual acuity. Figure 14 illustrates that each eye is measured at a positive value until both eyes have reached the same clarity. Once both eyes view the visual image with the same clarity, the system decreases the positive correction of the current reference prescription until the retinal image quality is optimized.]) to a first minimum value, with a first speed of variation (Tate | Column 26 lines 4-27),
the input device (processor – element 100 and computer – element 502) is configured to record (Column 26 lines 19-20, the computer records the optical system power preferred by the subject) a first response of the subject at a first time instant corresponding to a first optical power value relative to a first sharpness, the first optical power value being comprised between the initial maximum positive value and the first minimum value (Tate | Column 22 lines 30-68 to Column 23 lines 1-6; Column 26 lines 4-27),
the circuitry is configured to increase the optical power from the first minimum value to a second maximum value below the initial maximum positive value and then to decrease the optical power from the second maximum value to a second minimum value (Tate | Figure 14; Column 31 lines 27-68 to Column 32 lines 1-2 and Column 32 lines 34-45), and
the subject adjusting (manual response device – 122) or the circuitry is configured to adjust a speed of variation of the optical power between the second maximum value and the second minimum value, as a function of the response recorded relative to the first sharpness, the speed of variation representing how the circuitry or the subject changes the optical power as a function of time (Column 22 lines 14-18 to lines 19-25, these test stimuli are viewed through the optical system whose power is modified from time to time in accordance with responses and actions from the subject communicated to the computer 502 by the manual response device 122…The response or action of the subject is then dynamically used by the computer 502 in the selection of subsequent stimuli to present to the subject, in selecting the lens system power to present to the subject, and in making previously described compensation for changed testing conditions, e.g. change in vertex distance),
the input device being configured to record a second response of the subject at a second time instant corresponding to a second optical power value of the optical system relative to a second sharpness, the second optical power value being comprised between the second maximum value and the second minimum value (Column 23 lines 1-23),
the calculation circuitry is configured to determine the at least one visual refraction feature of the subject as a function of the first response and the second response of the subject (Column 7 lines 66-68 to Column 8 lines 1-4, the subject responds via patient response unit 122, coupled to control unit 100. Throughout the entire time the subject is being subjectively refracted, control unit 100 is also making objective refraction measurements by means of objective refraction system 124 which is in line with optical path 114B; Column 23 lines 7-23).
Tate discloses the processor (100) from one embodiment and the computer (502) from another embodiment to have the same function as the control unit. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to combine the processor and the computer because Tate discloses Column 15 lines 46-48, the automatic data processor 100 of FIG. 1 is represented in FIG. 5 by computer and interface circuitry 502.
Regarding Claim 4, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein first minimum value depends on the first optical power value relative to the first sharpness of the visual stimulus (Tate | Column 26 lines 4-27).
Regarding Claim 5, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the second maximum value depends on the first optical power value relative to the first sharpness of the visual stimulus (Tate | Abstract, the subject communicates with the data processing equipment via a subject response device to indicate his preference for one or the other of the presented symbols. The data processing system interprets the responses to modify the setting of the optical system, alter the presentation of symbols and elicit another response from the subject).
Regarding Claim 7, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the optical power includes a spherical power, a cylindrical power (Tate | Column 28 line 23-26, a determination is made as to whether the current reference prescription contains a cylinder component, i.e., any cylindrical power along with the spherical power) and cylinder axis (Tate | Column 30 lines 3-6, the cylinder axis may be fixed simply at that position where the subject's visual acuity is maximum of the cylinder may be eliminated altogether should the visual acuity not change with changes in the cylinder axis) or an addition power (Tate | Column 10 lines 15-20, a plurality of lenses arranged in a multi-layered turret assembly wherein a wide variation in lens power may be achieved by rotating the proper combination of lenses to be positioned in front of the subject's eye) or a binocular balance between both eyes of the subject (Tate | Column 9 lines 29-38, the lens system includes variable crossed cylinders 116 positioned immediately in front of the subject's right eye, beam splitter 118 positioned in front of variable crossed cylinders 116, and a fixed positive power lens 214 positioned between the beam splitter 118 and the screen 202. (Although not shown in the drawing, the lens system 35 includes a second variable crossed cylinder, beam splitter and fixed lens which are positioned in front of the left eye of the subject during the examination).).
Regarding Claim 9, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the circuitry is configured to select the visual stimulus depending on the current predetermined stage of variation of the speed (Tate | Column 8 lines 45-52, test symbols and other visual stimuli are presented to the subject under control of a programmed automatic data processor or computer 100. The subject views the test symbols through an optical system, also controlled by the processor 100 and communicates responses to the processor. The subject is automatically given instructions as the examination proceeds so that no human intervention is necessary once the examination is underway) or depending on the response recorded (Tate | Column 26 lines 17-21, when the subject indicates his preference (either consciously by using the manual response device 122 or unconsciously by way of the VER monitor 596) the computer records the optical system power preferred by the subject as PP).
Regarding Claim 10, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the input device comprises a user interface configured to record an input parameter (Tate | Column 15 lines 54-61, the computer 502 communicates with the external world and to the subject 200 via a plurality of external devices. Input information and especially initializing data is supplied by way of input circuits 508 which may comprise any of a variety of input devices such as a tape reader, card reader, typewriter, etc. Such input data indicates the initial settings to be made by the computer 502 of the various items of equipment), and
the circuitry is configured to drive the speed of variation as a function of the input parameter (Tate | Column 7 lines 66-68 to Column 8 lines 1-4, the subject responds via patient response unit 122, coupled to control unit 100. Throughout the entire time the subject is being subjectively refracted, control unit 100 is also making objective refraction measurements by means of objective refraction system 124 which is in line with optical path 114B).
Regarding Claim 11, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 10, wherein the user interface comprises a button, a dimmer, a joystick (Tate | response device – element 122), a device configured to record a physiological signal of the subject, a voice recognition system, a computer interface (Tate | screen – element 202), a brain- computer interface with electrodes recording brain activity in real-time (Tate | Column 21 lines 59-62, the monitor 596 includes a plurality of electrodes 595 which are secured to the scalp of the subject 200 for detecting the electrical activity (signals) in the occipital lobe of the brain), an interface with a pupil measurement system or with a reaction time measurement system (Tate | Column 21 lines 30-33, after the subject's response time has been measured, the computer 502 applies a reset pulse both to the response device 122 and to the counter 708 in preparation for the next subject response time measurement), a tracking movement (Tate | vertexometer – element 220) or an eye tracking system (Tate | eye movement monitor unit – element 126) or a face or hand or body expression analyzing system (Tate | Column 11 lines 31-34, any movement of the forehead of the subject 200 causes a corresponding movement of the feeler bar 224 within the housing 222 and this movement causes the generation of a signal which is transmitted to the processor 100).
Regarding Claim 12, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, the apparatus being configured to record a reaction time of the subject (Tate | Figure 7; Column 26 lines 47-49, the manual response apparatus, timing circuitry was included to provide the computer with a measure of the reaction time of the subject).
Regarding Claim 13, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a range of the optical power (Tate | Column 32 lines 12-17, the power of the optical system of the apparatus may be varied in a continuous manner, also under control of the data processing system, to provide a wide range of lens powers which may be presented to the subject while maintaining constant the number of lenses which are placed before the subject) or a range of the speed of variation are preselected as a function of data relative to the subject or as a function of distance to the visual stimulus (Tate | Column 6 lines 21-24, another object of the present invention to change the magnitude of the difference between two choices of Prescription in an optimum fashion as a function of visual acuity). By broadest reasonable interpretation, visual acuity refers to the ability of the eye distinguishing fine details and measuring how sharp one’s vision is at a given distance. Therefore, visual acuity is a function of distance to the visual stimulus;
or the optical power variation is periodic (Tate | Column 6 lines 64-68 to Column 7 lines 1-3, periodic, and preferable frequent, objective and/or subjective visual acuity tests are made and the objective test results used by the data processing equipment in conjunction with the patient responses to control the power settings of the optical system. Additionally, objective refraction measurements are periodically made as a check against the patient's subjective responses).
Regarding Claim 14, Tate discloses a system for measuring at least one visual refraction feature of a subject, the system comprising:
the apparatus according to claim 1 (Tate | Abstract; Figure 2; Column 6 lines 45-68 to Column 7 lines 1-3, and Column 7 lines 45-68 to Column 8 lines 1-8); and
an objective refraction measurement device (Abstract, apparatus and method provide for automatically measuring the refractive error of a subject's eye and thus the prescription for lens or eye glasses for correcting this error. Under the control of a programmed automatic data processing system, an objective refraction measurement is made). By broadest reasonable interpretation, the apparatus within the programmed automatic data processing system is the objective refraction measurement device,
or a device for measuring micro-fluctuations of refraction of the eye, configured to provide preliminary measurements, wherein the circuitry is configured to define an initial profile for the speed of variation of the optical power according to said preliminary measurements (Tate | Column 15 lines 55-61, input information and especially initializing data is supplied by way of input circuits 508 which may comprise any of a variety of input devices such as a tape reader, card reader, typewriter, etc. Such input data indicates the initial settings to be made by the computer 502 of the various items of equipment).
Regarding Claim 15, Tate discloses a method for determining at least one visual refraction feature of a subject (Abstract, apparatus and method provide for automatically measuring the refractive error of a subject's eye and thus the prescription for lens or eye glasses for correcting this error), the method comprising:
a) varying continuously an optical power of an optical system (Column 5 lines 2-4, provide automatic refraction apparatus and method having an optional system of continuously variable power through which the subject views a test symbol) in a phoropter (Column 9 lines 29-38, the lens system includes variable crossed cylinders 116 positioned immediately in front of the subject's right eye, beam splitter 118 positioned in front of variable crossed cylinders 116, and a fixed positive power lens 214 positioned between the beam splitter 118 and the screen 202. (Although not shown in the drawing, the lens system includes a second variable crossed cylinder, beam splitter and fixed lens which are positioned in front of the left eye of the subject during the examination)). The phoropter is an instrument that measures the eye’s refraction error to help determine the user’s eye prescription. By broadest reasonable interpretation, the lens system functions the same as the phoropter because both are measuring the eye’s refraction error to provide the correct prescription to the patient, by driving the optical power of the optical system at an initial maximum positive value (Tate | Column 8 lines 16-18, if the visual acuity is worse, the system is reset to where the retinal image quality and visual acuity are at a maximum), decreasing the optical power from the initial maximum positive value until a first minimum value, with a first speed of variation (Tate | Block 1422 within Figure 14; Column 31 lines 27-68 to Column 32 lines 1-2; [Examiner’s note, Figure 14 is a subprogram within Figures 8A-D for testing visual acuity. Figure 14 illustrates that each eye is measured at a positive value until both eyes have reached the same clarity. Once both eyes view the visual image with the same clarity, the system decreases the positive correction of the current reference prescription until the retinal image quality is optimized.]), and the optical system being arranged on an optical path between an eye of the subject and a visual stimulus (Figure 2; Column 8 lines 54-56, the subject 200 is positioned a predetermined distance from a test screen 202 on which test letters or symbols are displayed for viewing by the subject),
b) recording a first response of the subject to the continuous variation in optical power of the optical system, at a first time instant corresponding to a first optical power value, the first optical power value being between the initial maximum positive value and the first minimum value, the first response being relative to a first sharpness of the visual stimulus seen through the optical system with continuously variable optical power (Column 22 lines 14-18 to lines 19-25, these test stimuli are viewed through the optical system whose power is modified from time to time in accordance with responses and actions from the subject communicated to the computer 502 by the manual response device 122…The response or action of the subject is then dynamically used by the computer 502 in the selection of subsequent stimuli to present to the subject, in selecting the lens system power to present to the subject, and in making previously described compensation for changed testing conditions, e.g. change in vertex distance; Column 22 lines 30-68 to Column 23 lines 1-6; [Examiner’s note, the subject responds to how sharp or blurry the visual stimulus via a manual response device. Based on the user’s response, the optical power is altered to aid in a sharper image for the user]),
c) increasing, by circuitry (processor – element 100 and computer – element 502), the optical power from the first minimum value to a second maximum value below the initial maximum positive value and then decreasing the optical power from the second maximum value to a second minimum value (Tate | Figure 14; Column 31 lines 27-68 to Column 32 lines 1-2 and Column 32 lines 34-45), and the subject (manual response device) or the circuitry adjusting a speed of variation of the optical power between the second maximum value and the second minimum value as a function of the first response recorded (Column 20 lines 33-39, manual response apparatus is shown in block diagram form in FIG. 7. With this apparatus, a measure of the time it takes the subject to respond to various test requests is made and this information is utilized by the computer 502 in determining subsequent optical system power choices, symbol sizes, etc., to present to the subject), the speed of variation representing how the circuitry or the subject changes the optical power as a function of time;
d) recording a second response of the subject at a second time instant corresponding to a second optical power value of the optical system relative to a second sharpness, the second optical power value being comprised between the second maximum value and the second minimum value (Column 23 lines 1-23); and
e) determining, using calculation circuitry, the at least one visual refraction feature of the subject as a function of the first response and the second response of the subject (Column 7 lines 66-68 to Column 8 lines 1-4, the subject responds via patient response unit 122, coupled to control unit 100. Throughout the entire time the subject is being subjectively refracted, control unit 100 is also making objective refraction measurements by means of objective refraction system 124 which is in line with optical path 114B; Column 23 lines 7-23).
Tate discloses the processor (100) from one embodiment and the computer (502) from another embodiment to have the same function as the control unit. One having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to combine the processor and the computer because Tate discloses Column 15 lines 46-48, the automatic data processor 100 of FIG. 1 is represented in FIG. 5 by computer and interface circuitry 502.
Regarding Claim 16, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the second maximum value depends on the first optical power value relative to the first sharpness of the visual stimulus (Tate | Abstract, the subject communicates with the data processing equipment via a subject response device to indicate his preference for one or the other of the presented symbols. The data processing system interprets the responses to modify the setting of the optical system, alter the presentation of symbols and elicit another response from the subject).
Regarding Claim 20, Tate teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the optical power includes a spherical power, a cylindrical power (Tate | Column 28 line 23-26, a determination is made as to whether the current reference prescription contains a cylinder component, i.e., any cylindrical power along with the spherical power) and cylinder axis (Tate | Column 30 lines 3-6, the cylinder axis may be fixed simply at that position where the subject's visual acuity is maximum of the cylinder may be eliminated altogether should the visual acuity not change with changes in the cylinder axis) or an addition power (Tate | Column 10 lines 15-20, a plurality of lenses arranged in a multi-layered turret assembly wherein a wide variation in lens power may be achieved by rotating the proper combination of lenses to be positioned in front of the subject's eye) or a binocular balance between both eyes of the subject (Tate | Column 9 lines 29-38, the lens system includes variable crossed cylinders 116 positioned immediately in front of the subject's right eye, beam splitter 118 positioned in front of variable crossed cylinders 116, and a fixed positive power lens 214 positioned between the beam splitter 118 and the screen 202. (Although not shown in the drawing, the lens system 35 includes a second variable crossed cylinder, beam splitter and fixed lens which are positioned in front of the left eye of the subject during the examination).).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRISTI DIVINA GOMES whose telephone number is (571)272-1356. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 7:30-4:30 & 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, Robert Chen can be reached at 571-272-3672. 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.
/SRISTI DIVINA GOMES/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791