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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment does not resolve the USC 112(a) issues. As best as Examiner understands Applicant’s position is directed to enablement “[t]he ‘processor’ is well-enabled by its definition to be able to carry out mathematical processes”, however the issue is not enablement, the issue is written description. As previously discussed, the written description fails to set forth the necessary/sufficient algorithm performed by the processor to determine the correlation factor.
Applicant’s amendments do not overcome the art. Specifically, Applicant has included the quarter-waveplate as an optional feature “may comprise”. Thus, whether the prior art includes a quarter-waveplate and mirror is not required by the claim language.
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the “optimal correlation factor” issue, however Applicant’s amendments have not resolved the issue of the known value.
Drawings
The drawings were received on December 22, 2025. These drawings are accepted.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
a) a light redirection component configured to…in claims (1, 14).
Because this/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.
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 1-6, 14-19 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “a processor capable of executing computer-readable instructions…for…determining an optimal correlation factor based on a difference between the measured aberration of the model eye and a known value” which is a computer implemented function lacking sufficient algorithm. (MPEP 2161.01 - Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made.).
In the instant case, Applicant’s specification does not provide any algorithm on how the computer performs the function of determining the optimal correlation factor from the difference between model eye aberration and some known value.
Claim 14 recites the computer implemented function step e) and thus is similarly rejected as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-6, 15-19 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1 or 14.
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 1-6, 14-19 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.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “the optimal correction” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claims 1, 14, the claims recite “between the measured aberration of the model eye and a known value” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). “Known” relative to when, what? Known by whom or what? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand any value to be a known value.
As to claim 15, the claim recites “between the measured aberration of the model eye and a known correction value” which is a relative term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). “Known” relative to when, what? Known by whom or what? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand any value to be a known value.
As to claims 1, 14, the claims recite “wherein a rotation of the quarter waveplate determines whether or not the internal eye model is in-line with the second optical path” which is a functional limitation that fails to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim (MPEP 217.305(g)).
Applicant’s specification shows the rotation of the quarter-waveplate and associated light paths in Figure 3. The ability to place the model eye in the light path appears to also require the particular polarization reflection/transmission properties of the unidentified reflector of Figure 3. Applicant’s specification contains no discussion on any of the polarization states or how polarization states are changed as the light passes through the reflector, to thereby perform the function to place the model eye “in-line” with the second optical path. Is the unidentified reflector a polarization beam splitter? Is light actually passing through the quarter-waveplate, then reflecting off the mirror?
Applicant’s specification appears to be an attempt to replicate the well-known1 optical isolation using a polarization beam splitter (PBS) and quarter-waveplate (QWP), however Applicant’s specification is absent any details. Additionally, it appears Applicant’s attempt to rotate the quarter-waveplate would render the path switching inoperable. As such, the metes and bounds are unclear.
PNG
media_image1.png
556
991
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 14, the claim (section v) recites “the correction factor” which lacks antecedent basis.
As to claim 14, the claim (section c) recites “the optical path” which lacks antecedent basis. Prior to this, the are first and second optical paths, thus it is unclear what is “the optical path”.
Claims 2-6, 15-19 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1 or 14.
As to claim 15, the claim recites “an optimal correction factor” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide any objective metric on what is an “optimal correction factor”. Optimal relative to what? Such feature appears subjective to a practitioner as to what correlation factor would be optimal. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art determines a correction factor, such factor is necessarily “optimal”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5, 14-15, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakil et al. (US 2005/0007551 - Wakil; of record) in view of Lai (US 2006/0007397; of record).
As to claim 1, Wakil teaches a vision testing system capable of automated internal calibration (Wakil Fig. 4) comprising
an automatic vision testing device capable of measuring the ophthalmic aberration of the eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - 15, 19; para. [0133], [0075]), and providing a necessary correction (Wakil para. [0133], [0075]), comprising
a wavefront sensor configured to measure the ophthalmic aberration of the eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - 19; para. [0133]);
one or more lenses configured to correct the measured ophthalmic aberration (Wakil Fig. 4 - 10, 11; para. [0072])
an internal model eye disposed within the vision testing device for internal calibration (Wakil Fig. 4 - 34, 35, 36; para. [0077], [0051]), the internal eye model may comprise a quarter waveplate configured to rotate and a mirror configured to reflect light such that the mirror mimics reflectivity of the eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - 36; such features are optional as per the claimed “may comprise”);
a first optical path between the wavefront sensor and a test position for the eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - path from wavefront sensor (19) to eye (15));
a second optical path between the wavefront sensor and the internal model eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - path from (19) to model (34)), wherein a rotation of the quarter-waveplate determines whether or not the internal model eye is in-line with the second optical path (Wakil Fig. 4 - 13, 34, 35, 36; such features are optional as per the claimed “may comprise”);
a light redirection component configured to selectively enable either testing via the first optical path or calibration via the second optical path (Wakil Fig. 4 - 13; para. [0077], [0101], [0102]);
a computing device operatively coupled to the vision testing device comprising a processor capable of executing computer readable instructions and a memory component comprising a plurality of computer readable instructions (Wakil Fig. 4 - 24; para. [0078]) for
accepting a calibration request (Wakil para. [0051], [0078], [0101], [0102]);
enabling the second optical path (Wakil Fig. 4 - 13; para. [0077], [0101], [0102]);
measuring an ophthalmic aberration of the model eye via the wavefront sensor (Wakil para. [0077], [0078], [0051], [0098]);
determining a correlation factor comprising a difference between the measured aberration of the model eye and a known value (Wakil para. [0098], [0051]).
Wakil doesn’t specify the vision testing system is a combined phoropter and aberrometer/wavefront sensor. In the same field of endeavor Lai teaches phoropters incorporating aberrometers/wavefront sensors (Lai Fig. 5 - 12; Fig. 7 - 22, 36, 38; para. [0049], [0051], [0054], [0057], [0058]; Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a phoropter and wavefront sensor as the vision testing system since, as taught by Lai, such systems are well known in the art for the purpose of testing both subjective and objective refraction (Lai para. [0003]).
As to claim 2, Wakil in view of Lai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wakil further teaches the optimal correction factor is calculated by measuring, by the wavefront sensor, a wavefront error of light reflected from the model eye (Wakil para. [0098], [0051]).
As to claim 5, Wakil in view of Lai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wakil further teaches the light redirection component comprises a mobile mirror mounted on an actuator (Wakil Fig. 4 - 13; para. [0077], [0101]).
As to claim 14, Wakil teaches a method for automated internal calibration of vision testing system (Wakil Fig. 4) comprising
providing an automatic vision testing device capable of measuring the ophthalmic aberration of the eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - 15; 19; para. [0133], [0075]), and providing a necessary correction (Wakil para. [0133], [0075]), comprising
a wavefront sensor configured to measure the ophthalmic aberration of the eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - 19; para. [0133]);
one or more lenses configured to correct the measured ophthalmic aberration (Wakil Fig. 4 - 10, 11; para. [0072]);
an internal model eye disposed within the vision testing device for internal calibration (Wakil Fig. 4 - 34, 35, 36; para. [0077], [0051]) the internal eye model may comprise a quarter waveplate configured to rotate and a mirror configured to reflect light such that the mirror mimics reflectivity of the eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - 36; such features are optional as per the claimed “may comprise”);
a first optical path between the wavefront sensor and a test position for the eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - path from wavefront sensor (19) to eye (15));
a second optical path between the wavefront sensor and the internal model eye (Wakil Fig. 4 - path from (19) to model (34)), wherein the correction factor is calculated by measuring, by the wavefront sensor, a wavefront error of light reflected by the eye model (Wakil para. [0098], [0051]);
a light redirection component configured to selectively enable either testing via the first optical path or calibration via the second optical path (Wakil Fig. 4 - 13; para. [0077], [0101], [0102]);
accepting a recalibration request (Wakil para. [0051], [0078], [0101], [0102]);
enabling the second optical path (Wakil Fig. 4 - 13; para. [0077], [0101], [0102]);
measuring an ophthalmic aberration of the model eye via the wavefront sensor (Wakil para. [0077], [0078], [0051], [0098]);
determining a correlation factor comprising a difference between the measured aberration of the model eye and a known value (Wakil para. [0098], [0051]).
Wakil doesn’t specify the vision testing system is a combined phoropter and aberrometer/wavefront sensor. In the same field of endeavor Lai teaches phoropters incorporating aberrometers/wavefront sensors (Lai Fig. 5 - 12; Fig. 7 - 22, 36, 38; para. [0049], [0051], [0054], [0057], [0058]; Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a phoropter and wavefront sensor as the vision testing system since, as taught by Lai, such systems are well known in the art for the purpose of testing both subjective and objective refraction (Lai para. [0003]).
As to claim 15, Wakil in view of Lai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Wakil further teaches determining an optimal correction factor based on a difference between the measured aberration of the model eye and a known correction value (Wakil para. [0098], [0051]).
As to claim 18, Wakil in view of Lai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Wakil further teaches and Wakil further teaches the light redirection component comprises a mobile mirror mounted on an actuator (Wakil Fig. 4 - 13; para. [0077], [0101]).
Claims 3-4, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakil and Lai as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Bor et al. (US 2014/0104576 - Bor; of record).
As to claims 3, 16, Wakil in view of Lai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 14, but doesn’t specify the light redirection component comprises a rotating polarizer and a polarizing beam splitter (PBS). In the same field of endeavor, Bor teaches vision testing systems with light redirection components comprising a rotating polarizer and PBS (Bor Fig. 18B - 1880, 1882, 1884; para. [0093]-[0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such light redirecting components since, as taught by Bor, such PBS and Faraday rotator are well known to redirect light from one path to another (Bor Fig. 18B - 1880, 1882, 1884; para. [0093]-[0095]).
As to claims 4, 17, Wakil in view of Lai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 14, but doesn’t specify the light redirection component comprises an electro-optics cell and a polarizing beam splitter. In the same field of endeavor, Bor teaches vision testing systems with light redirection components comprising an electro-optics cell and polarization beam splitter (PBS) (Bor Fig. 18B - 1880, 1882, 1884; para. [0093]-[0095]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such light redirecting components since, as taught by Bor, such PBS and Faraday rotator are well known to redirect light from one path to another (Bor Fig. 18B - 1880, 1882, 1884; para. [0093]-[0095]).
Claims 6, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakil and Lai as applied to claim above, and further in view of Nakanishi et al. (US 2007/0019159 - Nakanishi; of record).
As to claims 6, 19, Wakil in view of Lai teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1 and 14, but doesn’t specify one or more atmospheric sensors communicatively coupled to the computing device, wherein each atmospheric sensor is capable of measuring environmental temperature, environmental pressure, or a combination thereof, the memory component comprises computer readable instructions for
detecting, by the one or more atmospheric sensors, a change in environmental temperature, environmental pressure, or a combination thereof; and
transmitting a recalibration request in response to the change in environmental temperature, environmental pressure, or a combination thereof.
In the same field of endeavor Nakanishi teaches a vision testing system with internal calibration having an atmospheric sensor detecting temperature and/or pressure and transmitting a recalibration request in response to a change in temperature and/or pressure (Nakanishi Fig. 1; para. [0098]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such sensors since, as taught by Nakanishi, such sensors allow for detecting a change in temperature/pressure to calibrate when the environment remarkably changes (Nakanishi para. [0098]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Campbell et al. (US 8,282,211; 2009/0310083); Garcia et al. (US 6,927,888; 2004/0012853); Chipman (US 2007/0146632) are cited as additional examples of vision testing system with rotatable waveplates for changing optical paths.
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 2, 2026
1 https://www.edmundoptics.com/knowledge-center/application-notes/optics/understanding-waveplates/