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 .
Claims Accounting
Applicant's arguments, filed 07/09/2026, have been fully considered.
The following rejections are newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicant’s election of claims 1-14 without traverse in the reply filed on 06/17/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 15-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, and 10-12 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been canceled.
Claims 21 and 22 are newly presented.
Claims 1, 3-14, and 21-22 are hereby under examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/09/2026 has not been considered by the examiner, as copies of the corresponding foreign references and non-patent literature were not provided by Applicant.
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.
Claims 1-3, 7-10, 14, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Publication 2020/0029802 by Lane et al. (hereinafter “Lane ‘802”) in view of US Patent Publication 2018/0136486 by Macnamara et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Macnamara”) in view of US Patent Publication 2015/0282705 by Avital (hereinafter “Avital”).
Regarding claim 1, Fig. 3 of Lane ‘802 teaches a vision screening device (Lane teaches vision screening system 300), comprising: a first radiation source configured to generate color stimuli ([0058-0060], second display unit component 216 may display visible light in colors. It is noted that the embodiments of servers 202 and 302 (systems 200 and 300, respectively) are similar and may perform similar functions. Therefore, second display unit component 216 is interpreted as similar to second display unit component 316. All corresponding components across devices 200 and 300 are interpreted as containing the same details. [0059]; the LED array of the second display unit component includes one or more visible LEDs); a second radiation source configured to emit near-infrared (NIR) radiation (Lane ‘802, [0059]; second display unit component may also comprise one or more near-infrared LEDs); a sensor configured to capture radiation reflected by an eye of a patient (image/video sensor array component 312); a processor operably connected to the first radiation source, the second radiation source, and the sensor (processor(s) 304); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to ([0039]; instructions stored on computer readable media 310 can program the processor to perform functions): cause the first radiation source to present a first stimulus, and a second stimulus different from the first color stimulus, to the patient during a period of time ([0058]; the second display unit component is configured to display one or more graphical representations during a vision test.), and generate an output indicative of the visual ability of the patient ([0057, 0080], a diagnosis recommendation related to the output of the vision screening may be generated and displayed to the user).
Lane ‘802 does not teach the first stimulus and second stimulus being color stimuli; the sensor being caused to capture: first radiation reflected by the eye and responsive to the first color stimulus, and second radiation reflected by the eye and responsive to the second color stimulus; determine, based on the first radiation, a first value of a measurement associated with the eye; determine, based on the second radiation, a second value of the measurement; and the output being based at least in part on the first value and the second value or the output being indicative of an ability of the patient to distinguish between the first color stimulus and the second color stimulus.
Macnamara teaches a system configured to perform the method of screening for color deficiencies by displaying a projected Ishihara color plate as a vision test. The Ishihara color test projects a circle with dots in two colors (color plate) making a number or shape within the circle that may be distinguishable from each other for viewers with normal color vision but difficult or impossible to see for viewers who have a color perception deficiency. The method displays the color plate for a period of up to one, five, ten seconds or longer while tracking the gaze (i.e., measurement) of the patient for each color stimulus to determine an indication if the number or shape was seen by the patient (i.e., if the patient can distinguish between the first and second color stimuli) ([0278-0281]). This test allows the system to determine if the user saw the number or shape, indicating ability to distinguish between the first and second color stimuli, without conscious input from the patient ([0281]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the system of Lane ‘802 such that the first and second stimuli would be color stimuli; the sensor to be caused to capture: first radiation reflected by the eye and responsive to the first color stimulus, and second radiation reflected by the eye and responsive to the second color stimulus; determine, based on the first radiation, a first value of a measurement associated with the eye; determine, based on the second radiation, a second value of the measurement; and the output to be based at least in part on the first value and the second value and the output to be indicative of an ability of the patient to distinguish between the first color stimulus and the second color stimulus, as this would allow for the determination of the patient’s ability to distinguish between the first and second color stimuli without conscious input from the patient, as taught by Macnamara ([0281]).
Lane in view of McNamara does not teach the sensor being configured to capture NIR radiation, the first and second radiation being NIR radiation.
Avital teaches methods related to eye tracking. Avital teaches that gaze can determined based on the reflection of NIR light from the cornea and pupil and based on video recordings. This method of eye tracking estimates gaze direction with high accuracy ([0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device taught by Lane in view of McNamara such that the sensor was configured to capture NIR radiation in addition to image/video, the first and second radiation were NIR radiation, and the first and second values of measurement were based on the first and second NIR radiations, as using NIR radiation to track eye gaze produces high accuracy measurements, as taught by Avital ([0014]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital teaches the vision screening device of claim 1, wherein the first radiation source comprises at least one of: color light emitting diodes (LEDs) (Lane ‘802, [0059-0060]; second display unit component may comprise an LED array, visible color LEDs may be present); an organic light emitting display (OLED) screen (Lane ‘802, [0058]; second display unit component may comprise an active matrix organic light emitting display (AMOLED)); or a liquid crystal display (LCD) screen (Lane ‘802, [0058], second display unit component may comprise an LCD).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital teaches the vision screening device of claim 1, wherein the first radiation source comprises color light emitting diodes (LEDs) (Lane ‘802, [0060]; second display unit component may comprise an LED array, visible color LEDs may be present), the second radiation source comprises near-infrared (NIR) LEDs (Lane ‘802, [0059]; second display unit component may also comprise one or more near-infrared LEDs), and the color LEDs and the NIR LEDs are interspersed in a pattern on an LED array of the vision screening device (Lane ‘802, [0059]; “In some examples, the visible LEDs may be positioned between, and be substantially co-planar with, the near-infrared LEDs in the LED array”).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital teaches the vision screening device of claim 1, wherein the first color stimulus comprises a first color pattern (dots of the background color of the Ishihara color plate as taught by Macnamara [0278]), and the second color stimulus comprises a second color pattern (dots of the number or shape of the Ishihara color plate as taught by Macnamara [0278]), the first and second color patterns configured to cause a difference between the first value and the second value when observed by a patient exhibiting trichromat color vision (Macnamara, [0278, 0281]; The gaze would not be focused on any specific color stimuli color if no difference was detected. If a patient exhibits trichromat vision (i.e., normal color vision), then the patient would fixate their gaze on the second color stimulus, causing a difference in gaze measurement values.).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital teach the vision screening device of claim 1, wherein the output includes an indication of: passed screening, additional screening required. Lane ‘802 teaches that the diagnosis recommendation component may evaluate the measurements to provide a recommendation to the user regarding the vision of the patient (e.g., whether the patient passed the test, requires additional screening, etc.). ([0018]).
The combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital does not teach the output including an indication of a type of color vision deficiency.
In the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital, the test is for color vision deficiency (Macnamara [0278]), therefore it would be obvious to report the results of the vision screening test if the test indicated a color vision deficiency. This would communicate diagnostic results of the test to the user.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the output of the system taught by the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital to include an indication of a type of color vision deficiency, as this would communicate diagnostic results of the test to the user.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital teaches a vision screening device (Lane ‘802; vision screening system 300), comprising: a housing (Lane ‘802; Fig. 4 shows an embodiment of a vision screening device 400 according to some implementations that includes some or all components described with reference to the vision screening device of Fig. 3. Fig. 4 shows housing 402); a first display disposed at a first end of the housing and configured to generate color stimuli (Lane ‘802; second display unit 406 is considered to be at the first end and is analogous to the second display unit component. [0058-0060], The second display unit component may display visible light in colors.); a second display disposed at a second end of the housing opposite the first end (Lane ‘802; Fig. 4, first display unit 404 is on the opposite end of second display unit 406. First display unit 404 is considered to be analogous to the first display unit component 314); a sensor configured to capture near-infrared (NIR) radiation reflected by an eye of a patient (See the rejection of claim 1);
a processor operably connected to the first display, the second display, and the sensor (processor(s) 304); and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to ([0039]; instructions stored on computer readable media 310 can program the processor to perform functions): cause the first display to present a first color stimulus (See the rejection of claim 1), and a second color stimulus different from the first color stimulus, to the patient during a period of time (See the rejection of claim 1), cause the sensor to capture: first NIR radiation reflected by the eye and responsive to the first color stimulus (See the rejection of claim 1), and second NIR radiation reflected by the eye and responsive to the second color stimulus (See the rejection of claim 1); determine, based on the first NIR radiation, a first value of measurement associated with the eye; determine, based on the second NIR radiation, a second value of the measurement (See the rejection of claim 1); generate, based at least in part on the first value and the second value, an output comprising at least one of a diagnosis or a recommendation associated with the patient ([0080, 0084], a diagnosis recommendation related to the output of the vision screening may be generated and displayed to the user), and present the output via the second display ([0080, 0084]; an indication related to the output/diagnosis recommendation of the vision test may be generated and displayed to the tester via first display unit component).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital teaches the vision screening device of claim 10, wherein the first and second color stimuli comprise at least one of: black figures on a white background, the black figures including a color fringe; graphics of a first color on a background of a second color different from the first color (Macnamara, [0278]; the Ishihara plate features background dots of one color and number/shape dots of another color); color dot patterns (Macnamara, [0278]; the Ishihara plate features color dot patterns); or time-varying color images (Macnamara, [0278]; The hues in the Ishihara plate may change incrementally).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital teaches the vision screening device of claim 1, wherein the first color stimulus is presented during a first portion of the period of time (The Ishihara plate is displayed during the entire period of time, the first half of the period of time can be considered the first portion of the period of time, and the first color stimulus is displayed during that period), and the second color stimulus is presented during a second portion of the period of time (the second color stimulus is presented entire portion of time which includes the second half of the period of time can be considered the second portion of the period of time), exclusive of the first portion (The first and second portions of time correspond to different halves of the time period, which do not overlap, and are therefore exclusive).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital teaches the vision screening device of claim 21, wherein the first NIR radiation is captured while the eye is presented with the first color stimulus, and the second NIR radiation is captured while the eye is presented with the second color stimulus (Both the first and second NIR radiation are captured during the presentation of the Ishihara plate, wherein both the first and second color stimulus are presented).
Claims 4-5 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane ‘802 in view of Macnamara in view of Avital, as applied to claims 3 and 10, in view of US Patent Publication 2019/0125183 by Lane et al. – previously cited (hereinafter “Lane ‘183”) and Spot Vision VS100 user manual (2018) – previously cited (hereinafter “VS100 Manual”).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital teaches the vision screening device of claim 3, but does not teach wherein the color LEDs are disposed proximate a perimeter of a view window, and the view window is disposed at a first end of the vision screening device, the first NIR and the second NIR radiation reflected by the eye passing to the sensor via the view window.
Fig. 4 of Lane ‘183 teaches a device with an LED array disposed on a second display unit. The second display unit features an LED array coplanar with near-infrared LEDs ([0048]). The device comprises an image sensor that is disposed within the housing, where light (i.e., radiation) comes from the patient’s eyes ([0062]). Lane ‘183 describes a commercial embodiment of this device as the Spot Vision Screener VS100 ([0060]). The VS100 manual (Page 10; front view of the Vision Screener) teaches a front glass disposed on the exterior of the second display unit. The front glass would be in between the interior of the device (containing the LED array and the image sensor) and the exterior device (where the patient’s eyes are). Therefore, the perimeter (i.e., edge of facing the interior of the housing) of the glass (i.e., view window) would be proximate the LED array and the radiation reflected from the patient’s eyes would be pass to the sensor via the glass. The glass disposed between the patient and the interior components of the device can protect the electronic components from elements such as dust while allowing radiation to pass through.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device of the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital such that the color LEDs are disposed proximate a perimeter of a view window, and the view window is disposed at a first end of the vision screening device, the first NIR radiation and second NIR radiation reflected by the eye passing to the sensor via the view window, as taught by Lane ‘183 and the VS100 manual, to protect the electronic components of the device from elements such as dust while allowing radiation to pass through.
It is noted that the second display as taught by the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, and Avital is considered to be disposed at the first end of the device, therefore the view window would also be disposed at the first end of the device.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, Avital, Lane ‘183 and the VS100 manual teaches the vision screening device of claim 4, further comprising a display unit disposed at a second end of the vision screening device opposite the first end (Lane ‘802, Fig. 4; first display unit 404 is on the opposite end of second display unit 406 (corresponding to second display unit component 316. First display unit 404 is considered to be analogous to the first display unit component 314), the display unit being configured to display the output associated with the patient (Lane ‘802, ([0080, 0084]; an indication related to the output/diagnosis recommendation of the vision test may be generated and displayed to the tester via first display unit component).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, Avital, Lane ‘183 teaches the vision screening device of claim 10, but does not teach wherein the first display is disposed below, adjacent to, or above a view window of the vision screening device, the first NIR radiation and the second NIR radiation passing to the sensor via the view window.
Fig. 4 of Lane ‘183 teaches a device with an LED array disposed on a second display unit. The second display unit features an LED array coplanar with near-infrared LEDs ([0048]). The device comprises an image sensor that is disposed within the housing, where light (i.e., radiation) comes from the patient’s eyes ([0062]). Lane describes a commercial embodiment of this device as the Spot Vision Screener VS100. The VS100 manual (Page 10; front view of the Vision Screener) teaches a front glass disposed on the exterior of the second display unit. The front glass would be in between the interior of the device (containing the LED array and the image sensor) and the exterior device (where the patient’s eyes are). Therefore, the perimeter edge of the glass (i.e., view window) facing the interior of the housing would be adjacent the LED array of second display unit 158 (i.e. first display) and the first and second radiation reflected from the patient’s eyes would be pass to the sensor via the glass. The glass disposed between the patient and the interior components of the device can protect the electronic components from elements such as dust while allowing radiation to pass through.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device of the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, Avital such that the first display is disposed below, adjacent to, or above a view window of the vision screening device, the first NIR radiation and the second NIR radiation reflected by the eye passing to the sensor via the view window, as taught by Lane ‘183 and the VS100 manual, to protect the electronic components of the device from elements such as dust while allowing radiation to pass through.
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lane ‘802 in view of Macnamara in view of Avital, as applied to claim 10, in view of Lane ‘183.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, Avital, Lane ‘183 teaches the vision screening device of claim 10, but does not teach wherein the first display is transparent, and the first NIR radiation and the second NIR radiation reflected by the eye pass to the sensor via the first display.
Lane ‘183 teaches that the image sensor array may be positioned in the interior of the housing and orthogonal to the second display unit (i.e., first display). In this positioning, the radiation from the patient’s eyes pass through a substantially transparent substrate of the second display unit to get to the image sensor ([0062]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to have modified the device taught by the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, Avital, Lane ‘183 such that the first display is transparent, and the first NIR radiation and the second NIR radiation reflected by the eye pass to the sensor via the first display, as taught by Lane ‘183.
The configuration according to Lane ‘183 is a known configuration to detect radiation from the eyes of a patient with a sensor, therefore combining of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, Avital, and Lane ‘183 comprises combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP 2143.I.A).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Lane ‘802, Macnamara, Avital, and Lane ‘183 teaches the vision screening device of claim 12, wherein the first display generates the color stimuli by reflecting radiation from an LED array or a third display. The device of claim 12 is configured such that the second display unit comprises an LED array that projects an image onto a substantially transparent substrate (Lane ‘183; [0062]). The image is viewed by the patient by the image being reflected off of the substrate.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 6 recites: the vision screening device of claim 1, wherein the measurement comprises a refractive error of the eye.
The measurement relied upon in the prior art rejection of claim 1 relies on a gaze direction of a subject to determine an output indicative of an ability of the patient to distinguish between the first color stimulus and the second color stimulus. Neither Lane ‘802, McNamara, Avital, or teach generating an output indicative of an ability of the patient to distinguish between the first color stimulus and the second color stimulus based at least in part on a first refractive error and a second refractive error. Therefore, the limitations of claim 6 are patentably distinct over the prior art in this Office action and any other prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is acknowledged. These arguments are moot as they is based on amendments to the claims not entered.
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 NELSON A GLOVER whose telephone number is (571)270-0971. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 EST.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/NELSON ALEXANDER GLOVER/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ADAM J EISEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights