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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 16 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Please see response to arguments below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[t]he Office Action asserts that the two optical units 40, 42 can form the "optical units" of Claim 8. However, in Okikawa, the phoropter part is not included in these optical units 40, 42, but in the two measurement heads 23L, 23R. Because these units 40, 42 are detachable, the Office Action asserts that Okikawa also teaches the "moving mechanism" of Applicant's Claim 8," the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Examiner notes that both optical units 40, 42 and left and right measurement optical systems 24L, 24R of measurement heads 23L, 23R are both optical units within an optometry device ([0010-12]; figs 1 and 6; Okikawa).
In response to the applicant's argument that "[h]owever, Applicant respectfully submits that Okikawa's optical units 40, 42 cannot correspond to the "two optical units" of Claim 8 since, in Okikawa, the optical system that provides different correction powers is formed by components 32e and 32a located outside the optical units 40, 42. In Okikawa, it is indeed by making the positions of these components 32a, 32e varying that the described system can provide different correction powers," the Examiner traverses. . Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the same teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. See previous argument above.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[f]urthermore, in Okikawa…are not "configured to adjust a relative position of the two optical units so as to fit to different individual's eye distances," as is the case in Claim 8," the Examiner traverses. Okikawa explicitly discloses that a visual target and an observation system for observing the image of the visual target projected by the visual target projection system are arranged corresponding to the left and right eyes of the subject. The optical unit(s) are detachably provided on the optical paths of the pair of visual target projection systems, and has a light-guiding optical system that merges the optical paths of the pair of visual target projection systems and guides the light beam of the visual target from the pair of visual target projection systems to the image acquisition unit (Okikawa, [0007]). Thus, an optical unit that is detachably attached to a structure, wherein the structure comprises a visual target and observation system that is arranged corresponding to eyes of a subject, allows the relative position of the optical units to be adjusted by detaching and reattaching the unit. The detachable attachment operates as a moving mechanism that adjusts a relative position, even if the movement is not continuous. In response to applicant's argument that 'other optical unit 40, 42 is not already attached to this part 15. In other words, they are not "configured to adjust a relative position of the two optical units so as to fit to different individual's eye distances"', a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See also § 112(b) rejection below in the present Office action.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[m]oreover, Okikawa does not teach or suggest "at least one optical element having an optical power," movable between an active position and a retracted position," the Examiner traverses. Okikawa discloses the claimed invention except that a pinhole plate (32p; [0050]) is utilized to be inserted and removed from an optical path instead of an at least one optical element having optical power.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[o]n the contrary, Okikawa's pinhole plate 32p has no optical power…This beam is already well-focused and minimizes the blur on the retina," the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s assertion has not considered the art recognized equivalents presented in both the prior (dated 17 September 2025) and present Office action, for Okikawa shows that the configuration of pinhole plate (32p; [0050]), along with the variable cross cylinder lens/VCC (32h; [0050]) and field lens (32g; [0050]), is an equivalent structure known in the art. Therefore, because these two optical configurations within an ophthalmic device were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute an at least one optical element having optical power for the combined configuration of the pinhole plate (32p; [0050]) disposed between a variable cross cylinder lens/VCC (32h; [0050]) and field lens (32g; [0050]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this substitution because the pinhole plate (32p; [0050]) is inserted into the optical path, thereby enabling a pinhole test to be performed to determine whether or not the subject's eye can be corrected by spectacles, and thus, the pinhole plate (32p; [0050]), provided between the variable cross cylinder lens/VCC (32h; [0050]) and field lens (32g; [0050]), serves the same purpose and result of a target being produced at a variable distance from exit apertures ([0050]; fig. 4). See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980); MPEP § 2144.06. Examiner reminds the applicant the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
In response to the applicant's argument that "[t]he results are interpreted as follows: if vision improves significantly when looking through the pinhole, it confirms that the poor vision is due to a refractive error. This indicates that the patient's vision can be corrected with glasses or contact lenses. On the contrary, if vision does not improve, it suggests that the problem is not related to the eye's focus," the Examiner traverses. Examiner reminds the applicant that the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). See previous argument above.
In response to the applicant's argument that "[t]herefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have considered that other components (having an optical power) could be mounted movably between the active position and the retracted position…Consequently, Okikawa (as well as the rest of the art) fails to disclose, suggest, or render obvious all of the features of Applicant's independent Claim 8," the Examiner traverses. Applicant’s assertion has not considered the art recognized equivalents presented in both the prior (dated 17 September 2025) and present Office action. See previous arguments above. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 moving mechanism configured to adjust a relative position of the two optical units so as to fit to different individual's eve distances" in Claim 8.
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(b)
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 8, and 11-21 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.
With respect to Claim 8, [a] single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011), Katz, 639 F.3d at 1318, 97 USPQ2d at 1749 (citing IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
In the current instance, “a moving mechanism configured to adjust a relative position of the two optical units so as to fit to different individual's eve distances” in Claim 8, recite methods of using the apparatus within apparatus claim limitations. The recited limitation raises an infringement issue, for infringement of an apparatus claim occurs upon, for example, making a device that includes a structure capable of performing the recited adjustment. Examiner also reminds the applicant that infringement of a claim directed to method steps of using the apparatus requires performance of the adjustment step. “[A] moving mechanism configured to adjust a relative position of the two optical units so as to fit to different individual's eve distances” does not clearly distinguish whether infringement is based on the mere capability to adjust or on the actual adjustment during use.
Thus, it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates a system that allows adjustment of the relative position of the optical units, or whether infringement occurs when the relative position is actually adjusted to fit an individual’s eye distance. See Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990) & MPEP § 2173(p).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within an optometry device.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed. If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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 8, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okikawa JP 2019062938 A (see machine translation).
With respect to Claim 8, Okikawa discloses an optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) for testing an individual’s eyes (measure the characteristics of both eyes; [0011]), comprising:
a main casing (base 11; [0011]);
a phoropter (ophthalmologic apparatus main body 10; [0011]) configured to test the individual's eyes when observing a target along an optical path (binocular open type that can measure the characteristics of both eyes of a subject simultaneously; [0011]), the phoropter (ophthalmologic apparatus main body 10; [0011]) comprising:
two optical units (first and second optical units 40, 42; [0059] & left and right eye measurement heads 23L, 23R; [0018]) for the eyes of the individual (fig. 6 & 7), that are mounted on the main casing (e.g., optical units 40 and 42 mounted on ophthalmologic apparatus main body 10 which is provided on base 11; [0011-12]; fig. 1), each having a housing (e.g., housing structures of optical units 40 and 42 detachably attached to ophthalmologic apparatus main body 10 as seen in fig. 1; [0010]) that includes an entry on the target side (near target projection system 32; fig. 6 & 7) and an exit aperture on the individual's side (near user’s eye; fig. 6 & 7), and that houses (e.g., left and right eye measurement heads 23L, 23R housing optical systems 24L, 24R; fig. 1) an optical system (left and right measurement optical systems 24L, 24R; [0059]) to provide different vision correction powers to the corresponding eye of the individual (comprised of phoropter that obtains the appropriate corrective refractive power of the test eye by switching and positioning corrective lenses; [0039]),
a moving mechanism (fig. 1) configured to adjust a relative position (detachably attached to the ophthalmic device main body 10; [0010] & detachably provided on the optical path; [0087]) of the two optical units (first and second optical units 40, 42; [0059] & left and right eye measurement heads 23L, 23R; [0018]) so as to fit to different individual's eye distances (e.g., eyeball rotation axis OR is set as the θ axis; eye EL, ER distances as seen in figs. 3-4; [0031]),
a partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 41b & 43b; [0060] & [0070]) situated along the optical path (fig. 6 & 7), and
an image acquiring device (image pickup devices/CCD 31g, 44; [0044] & [0100]) directed toward the partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 41b & 43b; [0060] & [0070]) so as to acquire images of the eyes of the individual ([0044]) looking at the target (fig. 4 & 6-7) through the two optical units (first and second optical units 40, 42; [0059] & left and right eye measurement heads 23L, 23R; [0018]); and
a display device (display unit 30; [0044] & visual target projection system 32; [0048]) enclosed in the main casing (e.g., visual target projection system 32 enclosed within left and right eye measurement heads 23L, 23R of ophthalmologic apparatus main body 10 which is provided on base 11; [0011-12]; fig. 6) and configured to produce the target (display unit 30 to display an anterior eye image E' based on the image signal output from the imaging element 31g; [0044]), said target (fig. 4) being visible through the exit apertures (fig. 4 & 6-7) of the two optical units (first and second optical units 40, 42; [0059] & left and right eye measurement heads 23L, 23R; [0018]) of said phoropter (ophthalmologic apparatus main body 10; [0011]), the display device (display unit 30; [0044] & visual target projection system 32; [0048]) comprising:
a first screen (display 32a & screen/mask 32m; [0048] & [0051]) configured to display a test picture (test targets; [0049]) used in producing said targets (screen mask 32m presents visual target for checking the state of the optical path of the optical system; [0051]),
a second screen (display screen 30a; [0044]) configured to display a second picture ([0047] & [0061]), an image of the second picture being superimposed (control unit 26 generates image of the scale image S and superimposes the image of the chart image C on the image of the scale image S, and displays the image on the display unit 30; [0061]; fig. 6) with said target at the exit apertures ([0044-47]; fig. 4 & 6-7) by way of a main partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 31c; [0044]), and
at least one optical element (pinhole plate 32p; [0050]), said optical element (pinhole plate 32p; [0050]) being movable between an active position in which the optical element is placed on an optical path (allowing it to be inserted into the optical path of the visual target projection system 32; [0050]) of light emitted (fig. 4) by said first screen (display 32a & screen/mask 32m; [0048] & [0051]) and exiting the device through said exit apertures (fig. 4), and a retracted position in which the optical element remains out of said optical path (removed from the optical path; [0050]), in order for the target to be produced at a variable distance from said exit apertures (thereby enabling a pinhole test to be performed to determine whether or not the subject's eye E can be corrected by spectacles; [0050]), wherein
a single mirror support (measuring head 23; [0019]) holds said main partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 31c; [0044]) and the partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 41b & 43b; [0060] & [0070]) of said phoropter (ophthalmologic apparatus main body 10; [0011]; fig. 1).
Okikawa does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the at least one optical element has an optical power.
Okikawa discloses the claimed invention except that a pinhole plate (32p; [0050]) is utilized to be inserted and removed from an optical path instead of an at least one optical element having optical power. Okikawa shows that the configuration of pinhole plate (32p; [0050]), along with the variable cross cylinder lens/VCC (32h; [0050]) and field lens (32g; [0050]), is an equivalent structure known in the art.
Therefore, because these two optical configurations within an ophthalmic device were art recognized equivalents at the time the invention was made, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute an at least one optical element having optical power for the combined configuration of the pinhole plate (32p; [0050]) disposed between a variable cross cylinder lens/VCC (32h; [0050]) and field lens (32g; [0050]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this substitution because the pinhole plate (32p; [0050]) is inserted into the optical path, thereby enabling a pinhole test to be performed to determine whether or not the subject's eye can be corrected by spectacles, and thus, the pinhole plate (32p; [0050]), provided between the variable cross cylinder lens/VCC (32h; [0050]) and field lens (32g; [0050]), serves the same purpose and result of a target being produced at a variable distance from exit apertures ([0050]; fig. 4). See In re Kerkhoven, 626 F.2d 846, 850, 205 USPQ 1069, 1072 (CCPA 1980); MPEP § 2144.06.
With respect to Claim 15, Okikawa teaches a mirror support of the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 8, comprising a casing (measurement unit 20; [0018]) supporting the main partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 31c; [0044]) and the partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 41b & 43b; [0060] & [0070]; fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 16, Okikawa teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 8, wherein said image acquiring device (image pickup devices/CCD 31g, 44; [0044] & [0100]) comprises two cameras (fundus camera & tomography device; [0039]), each camera being directed toward the partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 41b & 43b; [0060] & [0070]) so as to acquire images of one of the eyes (fundus camera that takes images of the fundus & tomography device that takes tomographic images of the retina; [0039]) of the individual looking at the target through one of the optical units (binocular open type that can measure the characteristics of both eyes of a subject simultaneously; [0011]).
With respect to Claim 17, Okikawa teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 8, wherein said moving mechanism (detachably attached to the ophthalmic device main body 10; [0010] & detachably provided on the optical path; [0087]; fig. 1) comprises a lever (attachment members 40b & 42b; [0060] & [0070]) to manually adjust the relative position of the two optical units (first and second optical units 40 and 42; [0059]; fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 18, Okikawa teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 17, wherein the phoropter (ophthalmologic apparatus main body 10; [0011]) comprises a support element (forehead support 15; [0020]) designed to receive a head of the individual and to hold the head in position ([0012]; fig. 1) and wherein said moving mechanism (detachably attached to the ophthalmic device main body 10; [0010] & detachably provided on the optical path; [0087]; fig. 1) comprises a lever (attachment members 40b & 42b; [0060] & [0070]) comprises two levers (attachment members 40b & 42b; [0060] & [0070]) to manually adjust the positions of the two optical units (first and second optical units 40 and 42; [0059]; fig. 1) relative to said support element (first and second optical units 40 and 42 are
both attached to the forehead rest 15 when in use; [0059]).
With respect to Claim 19, Okikawa teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 8, wherein said moving mechanism (detachably attached to the ophthalmic device main body 10; [0010] & detachably provided on the optical path; [0087]; fig. 1) comprises at least one motor (pulse motor of drive mechanism 22; [0014] & [0025-26]) to adjust the relative position of the two optical units (first and second optical units 40 and 42; [0059]; fig. 1), and a controller (control unit 26; [0043]) configured to process the image acquired by the image acquiring device (image pickup devices/CCD 31g, 44; [0044] & [0100]) in order to detect the positions of the individual's pupils on the image ([0046]), and to control the motor (pulse motor of drive mechanism 22; [0014] & [0025-26]) as a function of the detected positions of the individual's pupils (based on control command from control unit 26; [0021] & [0023]).
With respect to Claim 20, Okikawa teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 19, wherein the phoropter (ophthalmologic apparatus main body 10; [0011]) comprises a support element (forehead support 15; [0020]) configured to receive a head of the individual and to hold the head in position ([0012]; fig. 1), wherein said moving mechanism (detachably attached to the ophthalmic device main body 10; [0010] & detachably provided on the optical path; [0087]; fig. 1) comprises two motors (22aL, 22bL, 22aR, and right horizontal drive unit 22bR all have an actuator that generates a driving force e.g., pulse motor; [0025]; 22cL and right rotation drive unit 22cR also have actuator generating driving force e.g., pulse motor; [0026]), and wherein the controller (control unit 26; [0043]) is configured to automatically control the motors (based on control command from control unit 26; [0021] & [0023]) so as to adjust the positions of the two optical units (first and second optical units 40 and 42; [0059]; fig. 1) relative to said support element in axes of the individual's pupils (first and second optical units 40 and 42 are both attached to the forehead rest 15 when in use; [0059]; fig. 1).
Claims 11-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Okikawa JP 2019062938 A (see machine translation) in view of Shimazaki et al. JP 2015066134 A (see machine translation; herein after "Shimazaki").
With respect to Claim 11, Okikawa teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 8.
Okikawa does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein said main partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 31c; [0044]) leans on a rim of a frame of a mirror support.
However, in another field of endeavor, Shimazaki teaches a spectacle wearing parameter-measuring photographing device ([0013]), wherein a partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 330; [0091]) leans on a rim (holding section 351; [0098]) of a frame (support base 352; [0099]) of a mirror support (optical system moving unit 350; [0098]; fig. 2 & 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ophthalmic device of Okikawa to include the technical feature of a mirror support comprising a frame and a rim, for the purpose of providing a correction unit while moving elements within an optical system, as taught by Shimazaki ([0102]).
With respect to Claim 12, Okikawa in view of Shimazaki teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 11.
Okikawa does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein said main partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 31c; [0044]) leans on said rim along its entire edge, a compressible material being layered between said main partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 31c; [0044]) and said rim.
However, Shimazaki further teaches the mirror support (optical system moving unit 350; [0098]; fig. 2 & 5) comprising a partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 330; [0091]) leaning on an edge of a rim (holding section 351; [0098]), wherein a compressible material (e.g., gases such as air, as seen in fig. 2 & 5) is layered between the partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 330; [0091]) and rim (holding section 351; [0098]; fig. 2 & 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ophthalmic device of Okikawa to include the technical feature of a mirror support comprising a compressible material, such as air, layered between a half mirror and rim, for the purpose of providing a correction unit while moving elements within an optical system, as taught by Shimazaki ([0102]). Furthermore, it has been held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art. See Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) See also In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960) See also MPEP § 2144.07.
With respect to Claim 13, Okikawa in view of Shimazaki teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 11.
Okikawa does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein said main partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 31c; [0044]) directly leans on three or four areas projecting from said rim.
However, Shimazaki further teaches the mirror support (optical system moving unit 350; [0098]; fig. 2 & 5) comprising a partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 330; [0091]) fixed thereto an image pickup element (310; [0099]), image pickup lens (312; [0099]), and a slide shaft (351a; [0099] also fixed to a rim (holding section 351; [0098]; fig. 2 & 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ophthalmic device of Okikawa to include the technical feature of a mirror support comprising optical support elements connected to a rim and half mirror for the purpose of providing a correction unit while moving elements within an optical system, as taught by Shimazaki ([0102]).
With respect to Claim 14, Okikawa in view of Shimazaki teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 11.
Okikawa does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein an edge of said main partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 31c; [0044]) is blocked and layered by three or four pins.
However, Shimazaki further teaches the mirror support (optical system moving unit 350; [0098]; fig. 2 & 5) comprising a partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 330; [0091]) blocked/layered by a slide shaft (351a; [0099]), a feed screw (355; [0101]), and another slide shaft (353b; [0099]; fig. 2 & 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ophthalmic device of Okikawa to include the technical feature of a mirror support comprising pins for the purpose of providing a correction unit while moving elements within an optical system, as taught by Shimazaki ([0102]).
With respect to Claim 21, Okikawa teaches the optometry device (ophthalmic device 1; [0010]) according to claim 8.
Okikawa does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations wherein said partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 41b & 43b; [0060] & [0070]) leans along its entire edge on a rim of a frame of a mirror support, said frame comprising three or four tongues that hold the partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 41b & 43b; [0060] & [0070]) against said rim.
However, in another field of endeavor, Shimazaki teaches a spectacle wearing parameter-measuring photographing device ([0013]), wherein a mirror support (optical system moving unit 350; [0098]; fig. 2 & 5) comprises a partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 330; [0091]) leaning on an edge of a rim (holding section 351; [0098]) of a frame (support base 352; [0099]); the frame (support base 352; [0099]) comprises the partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 330; [0091]) fixed thereto an image pickup element (310; [0099]), image pickup lens (312; [0099]), and a slide shaft (351a; [0099] also fixed to a rim (holding section 351; [0098]; fig. 2 & 5), wherein the partially reflecting mirror (half mirror 330; [0091]) is layered and supported by a slide shaft (351a; [0099]), a feed screw (355; [0101]), and another slide shaft (353b; [0099]; fig. 2 & 5).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the ophthalmic device of Okikawa to include the technical feature of a mirror support comprising optical support elements connected to a rim and half mirror, for the purpose of providing a correction unit while moving elements within an optical system, as taught by Shimazaki ([0102]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Nozawa et al. discloses a face supporting device, refractor, and visual target presentation unit substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 15 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872