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 .
Specification
The amendment to the Abstract has been acknowledged and reviewed.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the various functions listed on the claims (the FIG.1-5 illustrate broadly the general functions of method in claim 1), must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is drawn to a “computer program”, which does not explicitly exclude transitory media, such as signals or software. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-15 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. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite because it creates confusion as to when direct infringement occurs. MPEP 2173.05(p)(II). The rejection may be overcome by separating the method and apparatus into separate claims, with one depending on the other. For examination purposes, the method limitations will be treated as an intended result limitation (i.e. the measuring unit must be capable of calculating a threshold formula and moving the groups so they do not coincide).
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending on rejected Claim 1.
Regarding claims 1 and 16, the claims recite “plurality of test locations is arranged in a predetermined sequence, which has been derived in a training phase” which is unclear what device is performing the method (MPEP 2173.05(p).II) as well as infringement appears to rely on the subjective action of a user. The metes and bounds are unclear since infringement appears to depend upon whether a user maintains a specific position or viewing distance opposed to the method/steps disclosed.
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches a visual field map, such limitation are necessarily met.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending on rejected Claim 1.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “automatically” which appears to cite exemplary/preferential language (MPEP 2173.05(d)). The metes and bound are unclear since it is unknown whether the additional features are necessarily required.
Claims 2-15 are rejected for depending on rejected Claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form and to overcome the above 112 rejections including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 6, the prior art of Musialik taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method for obtaining a visual field map of an observer, comprising: “wherein a set of reconstruction matrices (D) is provided consisting of matrices
D
k
l
k
*
each matrix
D
k
l
k
*
comprising coefficients of said linear function, and wherein a respective vector (
e
^
k
) of estimates of the perceived sensitivity threshold is derived from the previously measured perceived sensitivity thresholds of said subset of test locations by means of the formula
e
^
k
=
D
k
l
k
*
y
Ω
k
*
, wherein
D
k
l
k
*
is a basis matrix of size M x k, wherein k is the number of test locations of said subset at which perceived sensitivity thresholds have been previously measured, and wherein
y
Ω
k
*
; is a measurement vector comprising said previously measured perceived sensitivity thresholds of said subset of test locations”. Claims 7 and 8 are allowable due to dependency on dependent claim 6.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 9, the prior art of Musialik taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method for obtaining a visual field map of an observer, comprising: ” wherein said at least one light signal comprises a first light signal and a subsequent second light signal, wherein the method comprises monitoring whether said observer has observed said first light signal and monitoring whether said observer has observed said second light signal, wherein - in case the observer has not observed the first light signal, the light intensity value of the second light signal is increased compared to the light intensity value of the first light signal, and wherein - in case the observer has observed the first light signal, the light intensity value of the second light signal is decreased compared to the light intensity value of the first light signal”. Claims 10-15 are allowable due to dependency on dependent claim 9.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments submitted 8/04/2025 have been considered, but are not found persuasive.
The newly amended claim language of claims 1 and 16 have been addressed in the above office action. The remaining arguments presented pertain to the invention disclosed in the office action dated 3/03/2025.
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 Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, 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, 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872