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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 07/10/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 06/13/2025. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprowl (USPG Pub No. 2018/0103841) in view of Tagnon (USP No 4,572,629).
Regarding claim 1, Sprowl discloses a visual function test device (200) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 24) comprising: a housing provided with a peephole (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 24 – it is both inherent and implicit for a “visual field instrument” to have a housing with an opening for the eye); a visual target display unit (204/402) accommodated in the housing (see Figs. 2, 4A-B), the visual target display unit being configured to display a predetermined visual target (Paragraphs 25); and virtual image optics accommodated in the housing (see Fig. 2), the virtual image optics being optics including a lens for forming a virtual image of the predetermined visual target at a position visible from the peephole (see Figs. 2, 4A-B, Paragraph 25), wherein the virtual image optics has an exit pupil of a predetermined dimension that is less than an interocular distance of a subject (see Figs. 4A-B, Paragraph 9 – “automatically adjusting the exit pupil size according to the size of the patient’s eye pupil”; the pupil size is less than the interocular distance and, in addition, the dimensions are adjustable to meet the desired size of the exit pupil), and wherein the visual function test device has an eye relief (Paragraph 28). Sprowl discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify an eye relief of 5 cm or more. Paragraph 28 of Sprowl teaches an eye relief of 25 mm (2.5 cm) as an example. In the same field of endeavor, Tagnon discloses an eye relief of 5 cm or more (Col. 4, Line 65 – Col. 5, Line 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Sprowl with an eye relief of 5 cm or more of Tagnon for the purpose of providing an apparatus of compact size that can test both near and far vision without the patient having to move their head (Col. 1, Lines 36-38) wherein the test support is placed at a relatively short distance (Col. 1, Lines 25-28). Furthermore, 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 (CCPA 1955). In addition to the inherent and implicit teaching of a housing with a peephole of Sprowl, Fig. 1 and the corresponding description of Tagnon illustrates a housing (10) with a peephole.
Regarding claim 2, Sprowl further discloses wherein the virtual image optics is provided with imaging optics configured to form an image of the visual target displayed on the visual target display unit between the target display unit and the lens (see Figs. 4A-B, Paragraphs 25, 28).
Regarding claim 3, Sprowl further discloses wherein the imaging optics has a diaphragm (see Figs. 4A-B, Paragraph 28).
Regarding claim 4, Sprowl further discloses further comprising: a directivity imparting part configured to impart directivity to a light flux from the visual target display unit to the peephole (see Figs. 4A-B, 6-8).
Regarding claim 7, Sprowl further discloses wherein the directivity imparting part is a microlens array arranged between the visual target display unit and the peephole (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 35).
Regarding claim 10, Sprowl and Tagnon teach the visual function test device set forth above for claim 1, Tagnon further discloses wherein the virtual image optics is capable of changing a position where the virtual image of the predetermined visual target is formed (Col. 5, Line 42 – Col. 6, Line 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Sprowl with the teachings of Tagnon for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 5, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprowl (USPG Pub No. 2018/0103841) in view of Tagnon (USP No 4,572,629) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Freeman et al. (USPG Pub No. 2018/0249151), hereinafter “Freeman”.
Regarding claim 5, Sprowl and Tagnon disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the directivity imparting part is a louver attached to the visual target display unit. In the same field of endeavor, Freeman discloses wherein the directivity imparting part is a louver attached to the visual target display unit (see Fig. 12, Paragraphs 89, 153, 168). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Sprowl and Tagnon with wherein the directivity imparting part is a louver attached to the visual target display unit of Freeman for the purpose of providing pixel correction or manipulation techniques to produce the desired optical effect (Paragraph 153).
Regarding claim 6, Sprowl discloses wherein the visual target display unit is a liquid crystal display (Paragraph 3). Sprowl and Tagnon disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify and wherein the directivity imparting part is a backlight provided on the liquid crystal display, the backlight being configured to emit light having directivity. In the same field of endeavor, Freeman discloses and wherein the directivity imparting part is a backlight provided on the liquid crystal display, the backlight being configured to emit light having directivity (Paragraphs 107, 108). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Sprowl and Tagnon with and wherein the directivity imparting part is a backlight provided on the liquid crystal display, the backlight being configured to emit light having directivity of Freeman for the purpose of controlling the brightness of the displayed image (Paragraph 107).
Regarding claim 9, Sprowl discloses further comprising: an imaging unit (208/468) configured to track a line of sight of the subject through the peephole (see Figs. 2, 4C, Paragraphs 25, 30). Sprowl and Tagnon disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify visually recognizing the predetermined visual target. In the same field of endeavor, Freeman discloses visually recognizing the predetermined visual target (Paragraphs 115, 116, 160). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Sprowl and Tagnon with visually recognizing the predetermined visual target of Freeman for the purpose of providing an improved automated vision testing mechanism (Paragraph 160).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sprowl (USPG Pub No. 2018/0103841) in view of Tagnon (USP No 4,572,629) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0125179), hereinafter “Xu”.
Regarding claim 8, Sprowl and Tagnon disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify further comprising: a light-shielding portion mounted around the peephole, the light-shielding portion being configured to block a part of the light emitted from the peephole. In the same field of endeavor, Xu discloses further comprising: a light-shielding portion mounted around the peephole, the light-shielding portion (222 with 210) being configured to block a part of the light emitted from the peephole (see Figs. 10-12, Paragraph 107). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Sprowl and Tagnon with further comprising: a light-shielding portion mounted around the peephole, the light-shielding portion being configured to block a part of the light emitted from the peephole of Xu for the purpose of providing a self-administered method and system to test for visual function within the confines of a binocular viewer (Paragraphs 8, 9).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Sprowl in view of Tagnon does not disclose or teach independent claim 1 as presented.
The visual function test device of Sprowl comprises a housing provided with a peephole, a visual target display unit (204/402), and virtual image optics accommodated in the housing (see Fig. 2). Applicant argued that Sprowl does not disclose or teach “wherein the virtual image optics has an exit pupil of a predetermined dimension that is less than an interocular distance of a subject”. Figs. 4A-B and 7, along with the corresponding disclosure, of Sprowl show that the exit pupil does not exceed the size of the pupil of the eye (see reference numerals 702 and 704 of Fig. 7 and Paragraph 35). The exit pupil size is capable of being adjusted according to the size of the patient’s eye pupil (see Paragraph 9), without exceeding the dimensions of said eye pupil. Considering these teachings, in addition to the knowledge that an eye pupil size is less than the interocular distance, one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of adjusting the exit pupil size to a predetermined dimension less than an interocular distance. Sprowl discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify an eye relief of 5 cm or more. Paragraph 28 of Sprowl teaches an eye relief of 25 mm (2.5 cm) as an example. Tagnon is presented to teach that an eye relief is preferred to be 5 cm or more (see Col. 4, Line 65 – Col. 5, Line 2). 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 (CCPA 1955).
For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/24/2025