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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-27 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/27/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 4/27/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 4/27/2023. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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)(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-* is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Berme et al. (10,722,114), hereinafter Berme.
Regarding claim 1, Berme discloses, in figures 23-26, a system for conducting a vision assessment test of an eye of a patient (700, vision testing/training system) (col. 38, lines 9-10) comprising: a display screen (712, output screen) for displaying at least one moving target test profile to the patient (col. 37, lines 60-64 and col. 41, lines 38-47); an eye tracker (725,eye movement tracking device) controlled for automatically detecting a gaze direction data of the eye of the patient when tracking the test profile(s) (col. 37, lines 27-38 and col. 42, lines 16-22); and a processor (714, data processing device) for processing the detected gaze direction data and identifying a correlation between the gaze direction data and the test profile(s) to thereby obtain a vision assessment of the patient's eye (col. 37, lines 50-64 and col. 42, lines 34-44); wherein the system comprises a user interface for enabling an operator of the system to author the test profile(s) for the patient by controlling one or more parameters of the test profile(s) prior to the vision assessment test being conducted (col. 37, lines 60-64, col. 38, lines 29-34 and 38-42).
Regarding claim 2, Berme discloses wherein the test profile comprises a test profile path and a pursuit target travelling along the test profile path, the vision assessment test requiring the patient's eye to following the pursuit target, and wherein the test profile path is determined by the operator of the system (col. 38, lines 29-34, col. 41, lines 37-47, and col. 42, lines 34-49).
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 3-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Berme et al. (10,722,114), hereinafter Berme as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Publicover et al. (2015/0338915), hereinafter Publicover.
Regarding claim 3, Berme discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Berme discloses the targets appear sequentially (col. 41, lines 54-58) but does not specifically disclose wherein the test profile path is determined by controlling the parameters comprising one or more of the following: waveform shape, waveform period, waveform frequency waveform amplitude, a-periodic or periodic waveform.
Berme and Publicover are related as vision assessing and testing.
Publicover discloses wherein the test profile path is determined by controlling the parameters comprising one or more of the following: waveform shape, waveform period, waveform frequency waveform amplitude, a-periodic or periodic waveform (paragraphs 0183 and 0307 discloses periodic waveforms).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Berme with the profile path of Publicover for the purpose of serving as a graphical aid for more freeform modes of input.
Regarding claim 4, Publicover disclose wherein the waveform shapes is selectable from sinusoid, square, rectangular, triangular, saw-toothed and 2ⁿᵈ order waveform shapes (figures 12A-12H).
Regarding claim 5, Publicover discloses wherein the test profile path comprises pulses and/or spikes displayed at a predetermined frequency or wavelength on the waveform (paragraphs 0307 and figures 12A-12H).
Regarding claim 6, Publicover discloses wherein the test profile path comprises a geometric shape (figures 12A-12H).
Regarding claim 7, Publicover discloses wherein the test profile path is selectable from an oval or rectilinear shape (figure 7).
Regarding claim 8, Publicover discloses wherein the test profile path is an irregular curve in shape (figures 12A-12H).
Regarding claim 9, Publicover discloses wherein the authored test profile path is a wide pursuit path that extends across the entire threshold of the screen or field-of-vision of the patient (figures 12A-12H).
Regarding claim 10, Publicover discloses wherein said test profile comprises a plurality of target images being separately displayed on the display screen in a pseudo-random pattern during the vision assessment test (figures 6 and 7).
Regarding claim 11, Berme discloses wherein the user interface enables the operator of the system to author the test profile by controlling parameters comprising one or more of the following: number of the test targets to be displayed, size of the test target (col. 3, lines 9-13), colour of the test target (col. 41, lines 37-47), colour of the background for the test (col. 3, lines 9-13).
Regarding claim 12, Berme discloses wherein the user interface further enables a sensitivity of the eye gaze detection being used for the test, the sensitivity being indicated on the user interface by a boundary ring encircling each of the target images (col. 45, lines 54-58 and figure 27).
Regarding claim 13, Berme discloses wherein the user interface is displayed on the display screen (col. 37, lines 60-64).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights