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 .
Notice of Reply
This communication is responsive to the amendment(s) and/or argument(s) filed 11/20/25. The previous ground(s) of objection/rejection is/are withdrawn and the following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth hereinbelow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The accompanying information disclosure statement (IDS) submission(s) is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ofer et al. (WO 2014195951 A1, hereinafter Ofer).
For claim 1, Ofer discloses a method for evaluating a visual acuity of a person using a mobile device (100) having at least a front camera (120) and a screen (130), the method comprising:
positioning a user of a mobile device positions himself in front of a mirror at a predefined distance d/2 ([00219]);
positioning the mobile device with the front camera of the mobile device facing the mirror ([00219]);
measuring a distance d between the front camera of the mobile device and a virtual image of the mobile device in the mirror ([00219]);
displaying optotypes on the screen of the mobile device displays optotypes ([00231-00244]);
receiving an indication from the user in response to the displayed optotype ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]);
evaluating, using processing circuity, the visual acuity of the user ([00231-00244]), based on the received indication from the user ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]); and
receiving mobile device data, the mobile device data including at least screen data relating at least to a physical size of the screen of the mobile device and camera data relating at least to angular resolution of front camera's pixel ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]) especially ([00219]), and
wherein the distance d is measured based at least on the mobile device data ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]), especially ([00219]).
For claim 2, Ofer discloses the method according to claim 1, further comprising, prior to the displaying, comparing the measured distance d to the predefined distance d/2 ([00219]).
For claim 3, Ofer discloses the method according to claim 2, further comprising sending a notification (via 113) to the user based on comparison of the measured distance d and the predefined distance d/2 ([00126-00132, 00219]).
For claim 4, Ofer discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a size and/or angular size of the optotypes displayed during the displaying is adapted based on the measured distance d ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]).
For claim 5, Ofer discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the distance d/2 between the front camera and the mirror is regularly measured during the displaying and the evaluating ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]), and wherein a size and/or angular size of the optotypes displayed during the displaying step is adapted in real-time based on the measured distance d/2 ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]).
For claim 8, Ofer discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the optotypes displayed on the screen of the mobile device during the displaying step includes a single Landolt-C with varying directions ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]), and wherein the indication received from the user relates to a direction of an aperture of the Landolt-C perceived by the user ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]).
For claim 9, Ofer discloses the method according to claim 8, wherein the perceived direction of the Landolt-C aperture is indicated by the user using speech recognition and/or gesture recognition and/or movement of the mobile device ([00126-00132, 00219, 00231-00244]).
For claim 10, Ofer discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the displayed optotype further includes a movable cursor and the perceived direction of the Landolt-C on the screen of the mobile device is indicated by a position of the movable cursor ([0044, 00108, 00126-00132, 00212, 00219, 00231-00244, 00281]).
For claim 11, Ofer discloses the method according to claim 10, wherein the mobile device includes physical plus and minus volume buttons (smartphone 100 inherently includes physical volume buttons as input means), and wherein the movable cursor inherently capable of being controlled by the user using the physical plus and minus volume buttons of the mobile device.
For claim 12, Ofer discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the mobile device is holdable with a single hand ([0044, 00108, 00126-00132, 00212, 00219, 00231-00244, 00281]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 11/20/25, with respect to the statutory nature of the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 101 rejection of the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/25 regarding the 102 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant specifically argues:
For instance, amended Claim 1 recites a mobile device data receiving step, requiring the device to use its own screen size data and camera angular resolution to measure distance. In contrast, Ofer requires calibration with external reference shapes (such as a credit card or a facial feature scaled via such a reference) to establish absolute dimensions for distance estimation. The claimed invention is calibration free, relying only on internal metadata of the device, whereas Ofer is dependent on calibration objects and manual alignment.
Further, amended Claim 1 specifically measures the distance d between the front camera and its virtual image in the mirror. Ofer measures the Maximum Distance of Best Acuity (MDBA) between the subject's eye and the screen displaying optotypes. Thus, Ofer's framework does not include a mirror or virtual image geometry at all; it is based solely on physical displacement of the subject/device.
Moreover, the claimed distance is objectively calculated from device metadata (screen pixel size, camera focal length) and reflection geometry. In Ofer, distance is subjectively defined by the user through MDBA, then estimated using sensors and calibration. In contrast, the claimed invention eliminates subjective positioning to determine distance, whereas Ofer is fundamentally based on subjective user input.
The Action has mapped Ofer onto Claim 1 and asserts that Ofer discloses: user positioning, device positioning, measuring distance, displaying optotypes, and evaluating acuity. However, the mapping overlooks the substance of how distance is measured. In the Action's interpretation, Ofer measures distance and uses device data. However, Ofer's "device data" does not mean intrinsic metadata. It refers to sensor-acquired data analyzed with calibration (e.g., using a credit card). In contrast, amended Claim 1 requires the distance to be calculated based at least on metadata (screen size, camera angular resolution), which Ofer does not disclose. Thus, while the Action interprets that Ofer evaluates visual acuity by displaying optotypes, Ofer in fact does not perform a visual acuity test per se, but a refractive error estimation based on MDBA. Visual acuity is not evaluated from user responses to optotypes at calibrated angular sizes, but instead refractive error is calculated from subjective distance perception. The functional purpose differs.
The Action further interprets that Ofer inherently covers the features of Claim 1. Applicant respectfully traverses this reliance. Nevertheless, amended Claim 1 introduces explicit features of:
mobile device data comprising at least screen data... and camera data relating at least to angular resolution of the front camera's pixel.
distance d measured based at least on the mobile device data.
These features are absent in Ofer, which always requires external calibration and user defined MDBA.
Moreover, the amendment to Claim 1 clearly distinguishes over Ofer because the amendment introduces a mobile device data receiving step that defines how distance is determined. Moreover, unlike Ofer's calibration-heavy approach, the current disclosure calculates distance solely from intrinsic device parameters and mirror geometry, without requiring external reference shapes. This results in a calibration-free, objective, real-time measurement system, which Ofer neither discloses nor suggests.
In response the Examiner respectfully disagrees, references the rejection of the claims hereinabove, and notes the following:
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., “The claimed invention is calibration free, relying only on internal metadata of the device”, “virtual image geometry”, “reflection geometry”, “eliminates subjective positioning to determine distance”, “distance is objectively calculated”, “intrinsic metadata”, and/or “the distance is calculated based on at least the metadata”) 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).
The Examiner respectfully notes the inclusive, open-ended transitional phrase “comprising”, such that additional unrecited elements are not precluded. As such, Ofer’s calibration and/or user defined MDBA does not preclude it from reading on the claims, particularly when measuring the distance of the user from the mirror.
In response that Ofer fails to disclose measuring the distance from a mirror, the Examiner notes Ofer states inter alia:
“[00219] For testing lower diopter: SEP< 1.50D the test is done with auxiliary means such as a mirror. In this method the screen should face the mirror and the back camera facing the subject. The observed image distance by the subject is now the distance between the subject and the rear camera plus twice the distance between the screen to the mirror. This way the subject can still hold the smartphone in reasonable distance (~65cm) while viewing targets at distances up to 6m. In this method the rear camera can be used to estimate the eye-rear camera distance, while the front camera can estimate the front camera - mirror distance. In the later example, the smartphone known shape could be used as known object size to deduce distance.”
In response to applicant's argument that Ofer’s “device data” does not comprise at least screen data relating to physical mobile device screen size and camera data relating to an angular resolution, the Examiner respectfully notes Ofer states inter alia:
“[00126] The processor 110 operates a designated application capable of operating several modules: (i) a user interface (UI) 110; (ii) a distance estimation and calibration module 112 for repeatedly (continuously or discretely) estimating the distance between the tested eye and the display are/presented target image; (iii) feedback module 113 for instructing the subject during an examination session and for allowing the subject to input his/her feedback; and a refractive error module 114 for calculating the refractive error parameter(s) value(s), according to the estimated distance and the characteristics of the presented target images.
“[00127] According to some embodiments, the UI 111 may be a graphical user interface (GUI) of the designated application, configured for providing a platform for fixedly or dynamically presenting target images, allowing the subject to initiate examination sessions therethrough, instructing the subject during the examination session, allowing the subject to input subjective feedback in response to the presented target image and/or his/her location in respect thereto and for presenting the results of the calculated refractive error.
“[00128] According to some embodiments, the distance estimation and calibration module 112 is configured for instructing the subject to position himself/herself or the display device/area 130/135 to the MDBA according to his/her subjective perspective and receiving data outputted by the sensor 120 for processing thereof to deduce (estimate) the distance "Di" between the subject's tested eye and the target image at each given moment or timeframe. In cases in which the output of the sensor 120 is an image (e.g. when using a 2D camera), an image analysis process may be initiated to assess the distance by measuring the image- size of a shape in the acquired image that has known dimensions. In these cases the estimation and calibration module 112 (through the UI 111) may instruct the subject to hold a reference shape of known 2D dimensions (such as a credit card having a standard size magnetic stripe with the magnetic stripe facing the camera sensor 120) over his untested eye so that the image acquired by the camera sensor 120 includes the entire 2D known reference shape at each given moment of the examination. In this way the difference between image-size of the reference shape and the known real size thereof allow deducing the distance and angular perspective between at least the camera and the physical element which is or contains the 2D reference shape. This distance and angle allow in turn to estimate the distance between the tested eye located adjacent to the eye covered by the reference shape element and the center of the display area by knowing the positioning of the display area in respect to the camera sensor.
“[00129] In cases in which a 2D sensor 120 is used, to improve accuracy in distance estimations, a preliminary calibration process may be required, by acquiring an image of the subject holding the reference shape element covering his/her untested eye and measuring the absolute dimensions and shape of the tested eye through an image analysis process, according to the known absolute dimensions of the reference shape. In these embodiments, once the absolute dimensions and shape of the tested eye are calculated the tested eye itself serves as the reference shape in the examination process.
“[00130] For example, the subject may be required to hold a credit card over one of his/her eyes, with its magnetic stripe of the credit card facing the camera for a preliminary calibration of the examination session and acquire a calibration image capturing both his/her eye (one covered by the credit card) using the camera. The absolute width and length of the magnetic stripe of a credit card is typically standard and will be known in the system. The acquired calibration image is then analyzed, for instance, by calculating a ratio scale (for length width and/or width) according to which the absolute width of the tested eye may be deduced. This Eye- Width (EW) value (e.g. in centimeters) may be stored in a storage unit of the system and used as the known size of the tested eye as a reference shape for the specific session. This will allow using a separate reference shape element only at an initial calibration stage of the examination and not throughout the examination and optionally for each of the subject's eyes (as their size do not change over time) these values can be permanently stored for using in multiple eye examinations over time by the same subject.
“[00131] According to some embodiments, the feedback module 113 is configured for outputting instructions to the user and also for allowing the user (which may be the subject himself/herself) to input feedback information such as for indicating that he/she has reached the MDBA distance according to his/her subjective view and for outputting the resulting refraction error (dioptric power) of the respective tested eye.
“[00132] In some embodiments, a feedback mechanism for indicating that the subject has reached the MDBA, can include, for instance, identification of removal of the credit card or any other reference shape element (if using a video camera for instance) followed by an identification of two eyes located in the region of the reference shape prior to its removal, using the camera sensor and the processor unit.”
In response to applicant's argument that Ofer is not concerned with user indication in response to displayed optotypes, the Examiner notes Ofer explicitly states inter alia:
“[00237] The target image 31a is composed of two adjacent rectangular patches of red and blue (or green) colors. On each patch there is a number of letters (Snellen optotype letter proportions for instance) with a certain gap between each letter. This test can only be performed for subjects that do not have color-blindness. The starting size of letters (or any other optometric form - Landolt C, Illeterate E etc) of the target image 31a is 6/6 (each letter subtending angle of 5 arcmin). The test for SEP measuring relies on chromatic dispersion of eye optics, with red target seen in focus further than the blue (green) one. For this reason the subject may still be able to read the letters over the red background when the letters over the blue background become completely blurred and unreadable. The blue background can be replaced by a green background.
“[00238] In this phase of SEP detection, the subject is instructed to hold the display (with target image 31a) such that letters on both red and blue or green patches are blurred and unreadable. Then the subject is instructed to move the display closer (while target size is adjusted to keep same angle continuously or in steps) until he/she can read all the letters on the red patch (black letters with red background), while on the blue patch (or green) the subject cannot read all the letters (the stopping condition). This way the subject is not tempted to apply accommodation, and stops the first time red letters are readable at the MDBA. The resulted distance is then measured from the image taken by the camera of the system and image analysis thereof, as explained above, where the MDBA distance is then converted to spherical equivalent power with [00239] Power = 1/mdba
“[00240] If the subject cannot find distance he/she sees the 6/6 letters, the subject may ask to enlarge the letters to 6/9 size through the application UI (each letter subtending angle of 7.5 arcmin), and the procedure is repeated. [00241] Figures 15A and 15B show a striped papillon target image 32a having green arch-shaped stripes over black background with one of the arch-shaped stripes in each side colored in red, according to some embodiments of the invention: Fig. 15A shows the papillon target image 32a as displayed over the screen for measuring the MDBA; and Fig. 15B shows the papillon target image 32b as it would appear passing the MDBA where the red arch shaped stripes appear to turn yellowish.”
In response to Applicant’s arguments, the Examiner respectfully notes that, as broadly as claimed, Ofer’s method of smartphone use that includes processing video and/or photo data in 2D and/or 3D may be reasonably considered to “relates to physical screen size” and “angular resolution of front camera”, particularly when the phone is calibrating a measured distance while also using a mirror. The images used therein necessarily must include at least relations to physical screen size and angular resolution of front camera. Not only would one of ordinary skill recognize the imaging necessarily includes “screen size” and “angular resolution”, even a layperson would recognize that distance determinations would depend on quality/resolution of the imaging device.
Applicant’s arguments could likely obviate the 102 anticipation under Ofer if the claims required any or all or combinations of the following: “calibration free distance measurement, relying only on internal metadata of the device”, “eliminates subjective positioning to determine distance”, “distance is objectively calculated using intrinsic metadata”, and/or “the distance is calculated based only on at least the metadata”.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jeffrey G. Hoekstra whose telephone number is (571)272-7232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Thursday from 5am-3pm 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, Charles A. Marmor II can be reached at (571)272-4730. 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.
Jeffrey G. Hoekstra
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/JEFFREY G. HOEKSTRA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791