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 Statements (PTO-1449) filed 07/23/2025 and 07/31/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: improper dependency. For the purpose of continuing examination, it is assumed that claim 16 depends upon claim 14. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8 and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takii et al. (WO 2019/111788 A1), hereinafter “Takii”.
Regarding claim 1, Takii discloses an eye examination device (1) (see Fig. 1) comprising: a first objective measurement unit (45) configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of at least one of subject eyes using a method different from a photorefraction method (see Fig. 2, Pg. 6, Paragraph 7 of translation provided); a second objective measurement unit (10) configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of at least one of the subject eyes using the photorefraction method (see Fig. 2, Pg. 5, Paragraph 2); and a controller (80) configured to control at least one of the first objective measurement unit (45) or the second objective measurement unit (10) to acquire the eye refractive power (Pg. 8, Paragraph 5 – Pg. 9, Paragraph 8); wherein the first objective measurement unit comprises a first light source (Pg. 6, Paragraph 6), and wherein the second objective measurement unit comprises a second light source (11) that is different from the first light source (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Takii discloses wherein the first objective measurement unit (45) includes a light projection optical system (46) configured to project light toward an anterior segment of at least one of the subject eyes (see Fig. 2), and a measurement light source (11) of the second objective measurement unit (10) is also used as a light source of the light projection optical system (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 14, Takii discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (105) storing an eye examination program used in an eye examination device (1) including a first objective measurement unit (45) configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of a subject eye using a method different from a photorefraction method (see Fig. 2, Pg. 6, Paragraph 7), and a second objective measurement unit (10) configured to objectively measure eye refractive power of the subject eye using the photorefraction method (see Fig. 2, Pg. 5, Paragraph 2), wherein the first objective measurement unit comprises a first light source (Pg. 6, Paragraph 6), and wherein the second objective measurement unit comprises a second light source (11) that is different from the first light source (see Fig. 2), 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 (45), including the first light source, or the second objective measurement unit (10), including the first light source (11), to acquire the eye refractive power (Pg. 8, Paragraph 5 – Pg. 9, Paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 15, Takii discloses wherein: the first objective measurement unit (45) comprises a first light reception optical system and a first optical path for the first light source (see Fig. 2), and the second objective measurement unit (10) comprises a second light reception optical system and a second optical path for the second light source (11) that differs from the first optical path (see Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 16, Takii discloses wherein the eye examination program comprising instructions which, when executed by a processor 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. 2).
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 2-4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii et al. (WO 2019/111788 A1) in view of Takii et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0100666), hereinafter “Takii ‘666”.
Regarding claim 2, Takii discloses the claimed invention, but does 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, 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. In the same field of endeavor, Takii ‘666 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 (Paragraph 77), 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 88). 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 Takii 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, 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 of Takii ‘666 for the purpose of providing an improved eye examination device to objectively and satisfactorily measure optical characteristics of an eye while preventing undesirable influences (Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 3, Takii discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the first objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to project a measurement light flux onto a fundus of at least one of the subject eyes and to cause a first detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus, the first detector being disposed at a fundus conjugate position of one of the subject eyes, and the second objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to project a measurement light flux onto a fundus of at least one of the subject eyes and to cause a second detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus, the second detector being disposed at a pupil conjugate position of one of the subject eyes. In the same field of endeavor, Takii ‘666 discloses wherein the first objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to project a measurement light flux onto a fundus of at least one of the subject eyes and to cause a first detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus (Paragraph 77), the first detector being disposed at a fundus conjugate position of one of the subject eyes (Paragraph 77), and the second objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to project a measurement light flux onto a fundus of at least one of the subject eyes and to cause a second detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus (Paragraph 78), the second detector being disposed at a pupil conjugate position of one of the subject eyes (Paragraph 78). 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 Takii with wherein the first objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to project a measurement light flux onto a fundus of at least one of the subject eyes and to cause a first detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus, the first detector being disposed at a fundus conjugate position of one of the subject eyes, and the second objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to project a measurement light flux onto a fundus of at least one of the subject eyes and to cause a second detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus, the second detector being disposed at a pupil conjugate position of one of the subject eyes of Takii ‘666 for the purpose of providing an improved eye examination device to objectively and satisfactorily measure optical characteristics of an eye while preventing undesirable influences (Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 4, Takii and Takii ‘666 teach the eye examination device set forth above for claim 3, Takii ‘666 further discloses wherein the first objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to project a pattern index, as the measurement light flux, onto the fundus of at least one of the subject eyes and to cause the first detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus (Paragraphs 76, 77), and the controller is configured to acquire eye refractive power based on the reflected light flux received by the first detector (Paragraphs 76, 77). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the eye examination device of Takii with the teachings of Takii ‘666 for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 3.
Regarding claim 6, Takii discloses the claimed invention, but does 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, Takii ‘666 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 (Paragraphs 131, 133, 167-169); 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 131, 133, 167-169). 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 Takii 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 Takii ‘666 for the purpose of providing an improved eye examination device to objectively and satisfactorily measure optical characteristics of an eye while preventing undesirable influences (Paragraph 5).
Regarding claim 7, Takii discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify 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. In the same field of endeavor, Takii ‘666 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 (Paragraphs 177-181). 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 Takii with 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 of Takii ‘666 for the purpose of providing an improved eye examination device to objectively and satisfactorily measure optical characteristics of an eye while preventing undesirable influences (Paragraph 5).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii (WO 2019/111788 A1) in view of Takii ‘666 (USPG Pub No. 2020/0100666) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Samec et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0007799), hereinafter “Samec”.
Regarding claim 5, Takii and Takii ‘666 disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the first objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to scan the fundus of at least one of the subject eyes with the measurement light flux and to cause the first detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus, and the controller is configured to acquire eye refractive power based on a phase difference signal from the first detector. In the same field of endeavor, Samec discloses wherein the first objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to scan the fundus of at least one of the subject eyes with the measurement light flux and to cause the first detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus (see Fig. 19, Paragraphs 1844-1845), and the controller is configured to acquire eye refractive power based on a phase difference signal from the first detector (see Fig. 19, Paragraphs 1844-1845). 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 Takii and Takii ‘66 with wherein the first objective measurement unit is an objective measurement unit configured to scan the fundus of at least one of the subject eyes with the measurement light flux and to cause the first detector to receive a reflected light flux that is the measurement light flux reflected from the fundus, and the controller is configured to acquire eye refractive power based on a phase difference signal from the first detector of Samec for the purpose of providing accurate measurements for diagnosis (Paragraph 4).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii (WO 2019/111788 A1) in view of Samec et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0007799).
Regarding claim 9, Takii discloses the claimed invention except for 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. In the same field of endeavor, Samec 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 (Paragraphs 1435, 1850, 1880), and a detector of the second objective measurement unit is also used as a detector of the anterior segment capturing optical system (see Fig. 5, Paragraphs 1435, 1850, 1880).
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 Takii with 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 of Samec for the purpose of providing accurate measurements for diagnosis (Paragraph 4).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0117060), hereinafter “Hegde”, in view of De Rossi et al. (USPG Pub No. 2022/0361745), hereinafter “De Rossi”.
Regarding claim 10, Hegde discloses an attachment (202) to be mounted to an eye examination device (201) including a first objective optical system (205 with 206 – lens configuration for “optical projection” and imaging is implied) configured to a subject eye (208) (see Fig. 2, Paragraph 43), the attachment (202) comprising: a conversion optical system (204) 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 (Paragraphs 43-47). Hegde discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify configured to objectively measure eve refractive power of a subject eye. In the same field of endeavor, De Rossi teaches configured to objectively measure eve refractive power of a subject eye (Paragraphs 68-69). 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 attachment of Hegde with configured to objectively measure eve refractive power of a subject eye of De Rossi for the purpose of providing a simple and quick method and system to obtain a prescription (Paragraph 7).
Regarding claim 11, Hegde further discloses wherein the conversion optical system includes at least one of a plurality of measurement light sources (203) 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 (Paragraphs 42, 44, 46, 47).
Regarding claim 12, Hegde and De Rossi teach the attachment set forth above for claim 10, De Rossi further discloses further comprising: a distance measurement unit configured to measure a distance from the subject eye to the eye examination device (Paragraph 112).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the attachment of Hegde with the teachings of De Rossi for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hegde (USPG Pub No. 2019/0117060) in view of De Rossi (USPG Pub No. 2022/0361745) as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Hunter (USPG Pub No. 2023/0218163).
Regarding claim 13, Hegde and De Rossi disclose the claimed invention except for 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. In the same field of endeavor, Hunter 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 47). 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 attachment of Hegde and De Rossi with 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 of Hunter for the purpose of determining the distance of the patient from the device (Paragraph 47).
Prior Art Citations
Okamoto (USPG Pub No. 2014/0152958) are each 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. Takii and De Rossi address the challenged subject matter. 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 12/13/2025