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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/18/2025 are acknowledged and accepted. Claims 1, 3, 6, and 10 are amended, and Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application.
Election/Restrictions
Application’s election with traverse of Group I is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that the apparatus and method are not distinct inventions. This is found persuasive and the restriction requirement has been rescinded.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raviv (US 20200008667 A1) in view of Shi (WO 2017113192 A1).
With respect to Claim 1, Raviv discloses an apparatus for conducting one or more tests of a subject's vision, characterized by:
the apparatus configured for being worn by a subject, and the apparatus comprising:
a display device (Fig. 2-- element 20, display; see also: [0059]) for displaying a visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus);
a feedback unit (Fig. 3-- element 35, eye tracking device; see also: [0065]) for receiving a response of the subject to the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) and conveying it to a computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]);
a tunable lens (Fig. 4-- element 24, adjustable lens assembly; see also: [0060]); and
wherein the computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]) is configured for:
controlling the display device (Fig. 2-- element 20, display; see also: [0059]) for displaying the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) to the subject for the subject to view through the tunable lens (Fig. 4-- element 24, adjustable lens assembly; see also: [0060]) (Fig. 6—element 104; see also: [0082]);
determining one or more characteristics of the vision of the subject based on the subject's response conveyed through the feedback unit (Fig. 3-- element 35, eye tracking device; see also: [0065]) (Fig. 6—element 110; see also: [0083]),
tuning characteristics of the tunable lens (Fig. 4-- element 24, adjustable lens assembly; see also: [0060]) based on the determined one or more characteristics of the vision of the subject (Fig. 6—element 112; see also: [0083]); and
outputting values of the determined one or more characteristics of the vision of the subject (Fig. 6—element 114; see also: [0084]).
However, Raviv does not disclose a retractable periscopic arm arrangement comprising mirrors for observing inter- pupillary distance of the subject's eyes and adjusting a position of the tunable lens.
Raviv and Shi are related as both pertaining to the field of display apparatuses. Shi does disclose a retractable periscopic arm arrangement (Fig. 2—element 212, distance adjusting device and 2122, first rod; Page 8, Lines 1-4) comprising mirrors (Fig. 2—element 211a, plane mirror; Page 4, Lines 4-8) for observing interpupillary distance of the subject's eyes and adjusting a position of the tunable lens (Page 7, Lines 19-23: the distance adjusting device adjusts element 211a and element 211, the liquid lens, in order to adjust for the interpupillary distance of the user). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Raviv with the mirror arrangement of Shi in order to create a device which can optically correct the display light received by the user and enable high quality imaging (NAME, Page 7, Lines 19-23).
With respect to Claim 3, Raviv and Shi disclose the apparatus of claim 1, and Raviv further discloses wherein the tunable lens (Fig. 4-- element 24, adjustable lens assembly; see also: [0060]) is an electrically tunable lens (Fig. 4-- element 24, adjustable lens assembly; see also: [0060]), the characteristics of which are alterable by applying voltages to electrodes ([0060]: the tunable lens may be electrically actuated).
With respect to Claim 6, Raviv and Shi disclose the apparatus of claim 1, and Raviv further discloses wherein the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) is one or more visual stimuli selected from a group of stimuli comprising stimulus for testing a field of vision, a visual acuity, a contrast sensitivity, a color vision, a binocular function, a visual search, glare and light/dark adaptation, and a visual efficiency ([0093]: The series of stimuli can include various forms or shapes configured for detecting the visual acuity of the human eye).
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raviv (US 20200008667 A1) in view of Shi (WO 2017113192 A1) further in view of Bradski (US 20160026253 A1).
With respect to Claim 2, Raviv and Shi disclose the apparatus of claim 1, and Raviv discloses further comprising:
a projector (Fig. 5-- element 60, projector; see also: [0068]) communicatively coupled to the computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]);
wherein the computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]) is configured for:
measuring a distance between the subject and a passive screen ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient) in front of the subject and distant from the subject ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient or any other distance suitable for eye examination),
controlling the projector (Fig. 5-- element 60, projector; see also: [0068]) for projecting the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) on the passive screen ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient), wherein a size ([0112]: the size of the visual stimulus may be adjusted) of the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) projected is proportional to the measured distance between the subject and the passive screen ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient or any other distance suitable for eye examination) .
However, Raviv does not disclose a proximity sensor communicatively coupled to the computational device; and
measuring a distance between the subject and a passive screen in front of the subject and distant from the subject, based on an output of the proximity sensor.
Raviv and Bradski are related as both pertaining to the field of head mounted devices. Bradski discloses an apparatus comprising a proximity sensor ([0200]: the system may have a proximity sensor) communicatively coupled to the computational device (Fig. 3-- element 34, user sensing system; see also: [0200]); and
measuring a distance between the subject and a passive screen in front of the subject and distant from the subject ([0200]: the distance between the user and an object may be measured via the proximity sensor), based on an output of the proximity sensor ([0200]: the system may have a proximity sensor). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the apparatus of Raviv with the proximity sensor of Bradski in order to create a device which is capable of adjusting the user experience based off environmental factors (Bradski, [0200]).
With respect to Claim 4, Raviv, Shi, and Bradski discloses the apparatus of claim 2, and Raviv discloses further comprising a light sensor ([0039]: the system may include a camera which captures images of the ambient environment) for measuring an ambient light intensity for conveying intensity data to the computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]), wherein the computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]) is configured for controlling brightness ([0083]: the amount of light that reaches the eye may be adjusted) of the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) projected on the passive screen ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient) by the projector (Fig. 5-- element 60, projector; see also: [0068]) proportional to the ambient light intensity ([0039]: the system may include a camera which captures images of the ambient environment which allows for augmented reality; thus, taking the ambient brightness into account so that the augmented reality image is visible), brightness of a projected display being appropriate for determining the one or more characteristics of the vision of the subject ([0083]: the pupil’s reaction to the amount of light reaching the eye can be detected).
With respect to Claim 5, Raviv, Shi, and Bradski discloses the apparatus of claim 2, and Raviv discloses further comprising a light sensor ([0039]: the system may include a camera which captures images of the ambient environment) for measuring a light intensity on the passive screen ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient) for conveying intensity data to the computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]) ([0039]: the system may include a camera which captures images of the ambient environment which allows for augmented reality; thus, taking the ambient brightness into account so that the augmented reality image is visible), wherein the computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]) is configured for controlling brightness ([0083]: the amount of light that reaches the eye may be adjusted) of the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) projected on the passive screen ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient) by the projector (Fig. 5-- element 60, projector; see also: [0068]) proportional to the light intensity ([0039]: the system may include a camera which captures images of the ambient environment which allows for augmented reality; thus, taking the ambient brightness into account so that the augmented reality image is visible) on the passive screen ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient), brightness of a projected display ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient) being appropriate for determining the one or more characteristics of the vision of the subject ([0083]: the pupil’s reaction to the amount of light reaching the eye can be detected).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raviv (US 20200008667 A1).
With respect to Claim 7, Raviv discloses a method for conducting one or more tests of a subject's vision, wherein a subject is wearing an apparatus configured for being worn by the subject, the method comprising:
a step of displaying a visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) on a display device (Fig. 2-- element 20, display; see also: [0059]) of the apparatus, by a computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]) of the apparatus, for viewing through a tunable lens (Fig. 4-- element 24, adjustable lens assembly; see also: [0060]) of the apparatus, by the subject (Fig. 6—element 108; see also: [0083]);
a step of conveying, to the computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]), the subject's response to the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus), by a feedback unit (Fig. 3-- element 35, eye tracking device; see also: [0065]) of the apparatus, configured for receiving the subject's response to the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus), wherein the computational device (Fig. 4-- element 22, controller; see also: [0063]) is configured for determining one or more characteristics of the vision of the subject based on the subject's response conveyed through the feedback unit (Fig. 3-- element 35, eye tracking device; see also: [0065]) (Fig. 6—elements 110 and 112; see also: [0083]); and
a step of outputting values of a refraction error and the determined one or more characteristics of the subject's vision (Fig. 6—element 114; see also: [0084]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 8, Raviv discloses the method of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) is one or more visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) stimuli selected from a group of stimuli comprising, but not limited to, a stimulus for testing field of vision, a visual acuity, a contrast sensitivity, a color vision, a binocular function, a visual search, a glare and light/dark adaptation, and a visual efficiency ([0093]: The series of stimuli can include various forms or shapes configured for detecting the visual acuity of the human eye).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 9, Raviv discloses the method of claim 7, and further discloses wherein the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) for a refraction testing includes projecting on a passive screen ([0069]: element 60 can simulate a projected image six meters away from the patient), located at a distance from the subject and in front of the subject, by a projector (Fig. 5-- element 60, projector; see also: [0068]) of the apparatus, and wherein a size ([0112]: the size of the visual stimulus may be adjusted) of the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) is proportional to the distance between the passive screen ([0069]: element 60 can project an image six meters away from the patient) and the subject ([0039]: the system may include a camera which captures images of the ambient environment which allows for augmented reality; thus, taking the ambient brightness into account so that the augmented reality image is visible).
With respect to Claim 10, Raviv discloses the method of claim 7, and further discloses wherein comprising comprises a step of adjusting a brightness of the visual stimulus ([0063]: element 20 displays a visual stimulus) proportional to an ambient light intensity measured by a light sensor ([0039]: the system may include a camera which captures images of the ambient environment) of the apparatus.
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Raviv discloses a lens assembly, not a tunable lens which is deformed via voltage. Raviv discloses, in paragraph [0060], “the adjustable lens assembly 24 includes focus tunable lenses which can be either electrically or mechanically actuated such that the optical parameters thereof can be adjusted to provide vision impairment correction”. Thus, element 24 does disclose a tunable lens which may be changed via applied voltage.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Raviv does not disclose any provision to accept voluntary input from wearer. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a provision to accept voluntary input from wearer to take into account physiological acceptance of correction) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Raviv discloses an element 32 which collects feedback from the user and communicates with the controller to alter the location of the visual stimulus of the display, as claimed in claim 1.
Examiner disagrees with Applicant’s argument that Raviv does not disclose any projection system which talks about projection on a passive screen. In paragraph [0069], Raviv discloses element 60 can simulate a projected image six meters away from the patient, i.e. to alter the incoming light from the display in a way that it gets focused on the receptors on the back of the eye. Thus, it is possible for a user to virtually project the image onto a passive screen, such as a wall, utilizing the image projected from the display.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new amendments of claim 1 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
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 MACKENZI BOURQUINE whose telephone number is (571)272-5956. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 4:30 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/MACKENZI WADDELL/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872