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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/17/2026 has been entered.
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, 7-9, 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leube et al. (USPG Pub No. 2022/0039645), hereinafter “Leube”, in view of Artal et al. (WO 2022/150448 A1), hereinafter “Artal”.
Regarding claim 1, Leube discloses an eye examination device (118 – “smartphone”) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 137) comprising: a first objective measurement unit configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of at least one of subject eyes using a method different from a photorefraction method (Paragraphs 36-38, 48-50, 73 – eye movement metric and contrast sensitivity are measured to determine refractive error and power); a second objective measurement unit configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of at least one of the subject eyes (Paragraphs 127-129 – additionally and separately the refractive power distribution is measured to determine refractive power); and a controller (150) configured to control at least one of the first objective measurement unit or the second objective measurement unit to acquire the eye refractive power (Paragraphs 131, 150 – computer program comprising the various methods);wherein the first objective measurement unit comprises a first light source, and wherein the second objective measurement unit comprises a second light source that is different from the first light source (Paragraphs 40-42, 57, 127 – the display, the stimulus, ambient light, visible light source, IR light source are all interpreted as light sources; thus differing first light source and second light source). In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the separate measurement methods that require separate determination steps and/or algorithms are interpreted as the recited first and second objective measurement units. Leube discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify using the photorefraction method. In the same field of endeavor, Artal discloses using the photorefraction method (Paragraphs 58-59). 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 Leube with using the photorefraction method of Artal for the purpose of providing a precise, convenient and cost-effective method of measurement (Paragraphs 5, 6). Both Leube and Artal utilize a smartphone with an application and/or computer program to objectively measure eye refractive power.
Regarding claim 7, Leube further discloses wherein the controller is configured to set one of a first measurement mode using the first objective measurement unit or a second measurement mode using the second objective measurement unit, based on a switching signal of a measurement mode of eye refractive power of at least one of the subject eyes (Paragraph 150). The “computer program comprising the various methods” provides accessibility to separate determination steps and/or algorithms and/or applications on a single device requiring a selection step.
Regarding claim 8, Leube further discloses according to wherein the first objective measurement unit includes a light projection optical system configured to project light toward an anterior segment of at least one of the subject eyes, and a measurement light source of the second objective measurement unit is also used as a light source of the light projection optical system (Paragraphs 40-42, 57, 127 – the display, the stimulus, ambient light, visible light source, IR light source are all interpreted as light sources; these light sources are capable of being used separately and/or in combination for the desired application).
Regarding claim 9, Leube further discloses wherein the first objective measurement unit includes an anterior segment capturing optical system configured to capture an anterior segment of at least one of the subject eyes, and a detector of the second objective measurement unit is also used as a detector of the anterior segment capturing optical system (Paragraphs 40, 42, 137). The mobile communications device (116) is capable of being a smartphone or tablet. It is known in the art that the camera of said mobile communications device comprises optical elements and an image capturing detector.
Regarding claim 14, Leube discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Paragraph 57) storing an eye examination program used in an eye examination device (118 – “smartphone”) including a first objective measurement unit configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of a subject eye using a method different from a photorefraction method (Paragraphs 36-38, 48-50, 73 – eye movement metric and contrast sensitivity are measured to determine refractive error and power), and a second objective measurement unit configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of the subject eye (Paragraphs 127-129 – additionally and separately the refractive power distribution is measured to determine refractive power), wherein the first objective measurement unit comprises a first light source, and wherein the second objective measurement unit comprises a second light source that is different from the first light source (Paragraphs 40-42, 57, 127 – the display, the stimulus, ambient light, visible light source, IR light source are all interpreted as light sources; thus differing first light source and second light source), the eye examination program comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor of the eye examination device, cause the eye examination device to: selectively control at least one of the first objective measurement unit, including the first light source, or the second objective measurement unit, including the first light source, to acquire the eye refractive power (Paragraphs 131, 150 – “computer program comprising the various methods” provides accessibility to separate determination steps and/or algorithms and/or applications on a single device requiring a selection step). In the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the separate measurement methods that require separate determination steps and/or algorithms and/or applications are interpreted as the recited first and second objective measurement units. Leube discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify using the photorefraction method. In the same field of endeavor, Artal discloses using the photorefraction method (Paragraphs 58-59). 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 medium of Leube with using the photorefraction method of Artal for the purpose of providing a precise, convenient and cost-effective method of measurement (Paragraphs 5, 6). Both Leube and Artal utilize a smartphone with an application and/or computer program to objectively measure eye refractive power.
Regarding claim 16, Leube further discloses wherein the eye examination program comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor of the eye examination device, cause the eye examination device to selectively control propagation of light from the first light source along a first optical path or propagation of light from the second light source along a second optical path that differs from the first optical path (see Fig. 1, Paragraphs 36-38, 48-50, 73, 127-129).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leube (USPG Pub No. 2022/0039645) in view of Artal (WO 2022/150448 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou (USPG Pub No. 2014/0300868).
Regarding claim 2, Leube and Artal teach the eye examination device set forth above for claim 1, Artal further discloses and the second objective measurement unit is configured to project a measurement light flux onto fundi of both of the subject eyes to measure eye refractive power using the photorefraction method (Paragraph 13). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the eye examination device of Leube with the teachings of Artal for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Leube and Artal disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the first objective measurement unit is configured to project a measurement light flux onto a fundus of one of the subject eyes to measure eye refractive power using the method different from the photorefraction method. In the same field of endeavor, Zhou discloses wherein the first objective measurement unit is configured to project a measurement light flux onto a fundus of one of the subject eyes to measure eye refractive power using the method different from the photorefraction method (Paragraphs 30, 31). 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 Leube and Artal with wherein the first objective measurement unit is configured to project a measurement light flux onto a fundus of one of the subject eyes to measure eye refractive power using the method different from the photorefraction method of Zhou for the purpose of providing an inexpensive and easy method of detecting refractive errors (Paragraph 4).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leube (USPG Pub No. 2022/0039645) in view of Artal (WO 2022/150448 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tomasi et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0046029), hereinafter “Tomasi”.
Regarding claim 6, Leube and Artal disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify further comprising: a first alignment unit configured to capture at least one of the subject eyes and to adjust a positional relationship between the subject eyes and the first objective measurement unit; and a second alignment unit configured to capture at least one of the subject eyes at a wider angle than the first alignment unit and to adjust a positional relationship between the subject eyes and the second objective measurement unit. In the same field of endeavor, Tomasi discloses further comprising: a first alignment unit configured to capture at least one of the subject eyes and to adjust a positional relationship between the subject eyes and the first objective measurement unit; and a second alignment unit configured to capture at least one of the subject eyes at a wider angle than the first alignment unit and to adjust a positional relationship between the subject eyes and the second objective measurement unit (Paragraphs 55, 56). 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 Leube and Artal with further comprising: a first alignment unit configured to capture at least one of the subject eyes and to adjust a positional relationship between the subject eyes and the first objective measurement unit; and a second alignment unit configured to capture at least one of the subject eyes at a wider angle than the first alignment unit and to adjust a positional relationship between the subject eyes and the second objective measurement unit of Tomasi for the purpose of providing proper alignment of the eyes and the mobile device in order to acquire images of the eyes of the patient (Paragraph 55).
Claims 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leube (USPG Pub No. 2022/0039645) in view of Breuninger et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0167093), hereinafter “Breuninger”.
Regarding claim 10, Leube discloses an eye examination device (118 – “smartphone”) including a first objective optical system (camera of 118) configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of a subject eye (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 137), using a method different from a photorefraction method (Paragraphs 36-38, 48-50, 73 – eye movement metric and contrast sensitivity are measured to determine refractive error and power). Leube discloses the claimed invention except for an attachment to be mounted to an eye examination device, the attachment comprising: a conversion optical system configured to convert the first objective optical system into a second objective optical system configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of the subject eye using a photorefraction method. In the same field of endeavor, Breuninger discloses an attachment (10) to be mounted to an eye examination device (11) (see Figs. 1-4), the attachment comprising: a conversion optical system configured to convert the first objective optical system (camera of smartphone 20) into a second objective optical system configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of the subject eye using a photorefraction method (see Figs. 1-4, Paragraph 113). 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 Leube with an attachment to be mounted to an eye examination device, the attachment comprising: a conversion optical system configured to convert the first objective optical system into a second objective optical system configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of the subject eye using a photorefraction method of Breuninger for the purpose of providing an eccentric photorefraction measurement wherein light sources are properly positioned in a simplified manner (Paragraphs 26-28). Both Leube and Breuninger utilize a smartphone with an application and/or computer program to objectively measure eye refractive power.
Regarding claim 11, Leube and Breuninger teach the attachment set forth above for claim 10, Breuninger further discloses wherein the conversion optical system includes at least one of a plurality of measurement light sources disposed in a meridian direction with respect to a center of an optical axis of the conversion optical system, or a wide-angle lens configured to widen an image capturing angle-of-view of the second objective optical system in a case where the attachment is mounted compared with an image capturing angle-of-view of the first objective optical system in a case where the attachment is not mounted (see Figs. 1-4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the attachment of Leube with the teachings of Breuninger for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Regarding claim 12, Leube further discloses further comprising: a distance measurement unit configured to measure a distance from the subject eye to the eye examination device (Paragraph 57 – “distance sensor”).
Regarding claim 13, Leube and Breuninger teach the attachment set forth above for claim 10, Breuninger further discloses wherein the distance measurement unit includes an ultrasonic transmission unit configured to transmit an ultrasonic wave toward the subject eye, and an ultrasonic reception unit configured to receive the ultrasonic wave reflected from the subject eye (Paragraph 31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the attachment of Leube with the teachings of Breuninger for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Regarding claim 15, Leube discloses wherein: the first objective measurement unit comprises a first light reception optical system (camera of 118) and a first optical path for the first light source (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 137). Leube discloses the claimed invention except for and the second objective measurement unit comprises a second light reception optical system and a second optical path for the second light source that differs from the first optical path. In the same field of endeavor, Breuninger discloses and the second objective measurement unit comprises a second light reception optical system and a second optical path for the second light source that differs from the first optical path (see Figs. 1-4, Paragraph 113). 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 Leube with and the second objective measurement unit comprises a second light reception optical system and a second optical path for the second light source that differs from the first optical path of Breuninger for the purpose of providing an eccentric photorefraction measurement wherein light sources are properly positioned in a simplified manner (Paragraphs 26-28). Both Leube and Breuninger utilize a smartphone with an application and/or computer program to objectively measure eye refractive power.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5 are 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: none of the references, alone or in combination, disclose or teach the eye examination device of claim 1, specifically comprising the first and second objective measurement units projecting a measurement light flux onto a fundus, wherein a first and second detector respectively receive the reflected light flux from the fundus, the first detector disposed at a fundus conjugate position and the second detector at a pupil conjugate position as recited in dependent claim 3.
Prior Art Citations
Bailey (USPG Pub No. 2016/0128559 – Figs. 2A, 2B) is being cited herein to show an eye examination device relevant to the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
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 7/25/2026
Prosecution Insights