DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoo et al. (USPG Pub No. 2011/0027766), hereinafter “Yoo”, in view of Polat (USPG Pub No. 2011/0116047) and Maddalena et al. (USP No. 7,367,675), hereinafter “Maddalena”.
Regarding claim 1, Yoo discloses a method for determining a corrective for a patient (Paragraph 87), separately for each eye of the patient, using a patient terminal including a first computerized screen (130/140) and a remote device (150) with a second computerized screen (see Figs. 10A-F, Paragraph 106), the method comprising: displaying a figure on the first computerized screen (130/140) (see Figs. 10A-F); and enabling the patient (190) to make at least one input via the remote device (150) to change a size of the figure (Paragraphs 104, 114 – the size of the displayed indicia is changed based on the input of the patient).
Yoo discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify lens prescription, and providing the patient with a corrective lenses prescription for the patient's preferred type of corrective lenses, receiving, in the remote device, a link to enable the patient to launch an interface on the remote device for interacting with the patient terminal in a hand held manner, wherein interacting includes receiving instructions from a server and enabling the patient to make at least one input to the server via the remote device over a communication interface to control the first computerized screen from a distance, the remote device configured to use the link to be in communication with the first computerized screen through the server; wherein the input corresponds to a sphere measurement of the patient.
In the same field of endeavor, Polat discloses receiving, in the remote device (118), a link (“authorization codes”) to enable the patient to launch an interface on the remote device (118) for interacting with the patient terminal in a hand held manner (Paragraphs 49, 65), wherein interacting includes receiving instructions from a server and enabling the patient to make at least one input to the server via the remote device (118) over a communication interface to control the first computerized screen from a distance (see Figs. 1, 9, Paragraphs 48, 49), the remote device (118) configured to use the link to be in communication with the first computerized screen through the server (Paragraph 49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Yoo with receiving, in the remote device, a link to enable the patient to launch an interface on the remote device for interacting with the patient terminal in a hand held manner, wherein interacting includes receiving instructions from a server and enabling the patient to make at least one input to the server via the remote device over a communication interface to control the first computerized screen from a distance, the remote device configured to use the link to be in communication with the first computerized screen through the server of Polat for the purpose of exchanging information and providing accessibility to sessions (Paragraphs 48, 49).
Yoo teaches a system and method for visual testing. Although Yoo does not specify corrective lens prescriptions, Paragraphs 143, 144, 161, 163, 183, 188 and 191 all teach a quantifying or calculation step to output a score as the patient’s assessment results wherein the output is sent to a specialist for further processing or determination. In addition, although Yoo does not explicitly teach the input corresponding to a sphere measurement, the tests presented in Yoo are capable of determining the spherical component. Maddalena is presented to provide further evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of interpreting the teachings of Yoo as that presented in the claim and, also, realizing the required steps of the claim through the teachings of Yoo.
In addition, in the same field of endeavor, Maddalena discloses lens prescription (see Fig. 7, Col. 27, Line 57 – Col. 28, Line 14), and providing the patient with a corrective lenses prescription for the patient's preferred type of corrective lenses (see Fig. 7, Col. 27, Line 57 – Col. 28, Line 14), wherein the input corresponds to a sphere measurement of the patient (Col. 11, Lines 51-58, Col. 13, Lines 35-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Yoo and Polat with lens prescription, and providing the patient with a corrective lenses prescription for the patient's preferred type of corrective lenses, wherein the input corresponds to a sphere measurement of the patient of Maddalena for the purpose of providing a more convenient and inexpensive method and system for optical examinations (Col. 1, Lines 59-61).
Regarding claim 4, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Maddalena further discloses further comprising launching the interface for interacting with the first computerized screen via a browser (202) (see Fig. 2, Col. 7, Lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Polat further discloses further comprising: presenting another figure to the patient via the first computerized screen, the figure being large enough to be seen clearly by the patient (Paragraphs 147, 148); and enabling the patient to make at least one input via the remote device to decrease a size of the figure until it can barely be make out by the patient (Paragraphs 147, 148). In addition, Maddalena further discloses the input corresponding to another sphere measurement (see Fig. 7, Col. 28, Lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Yoo with the teachings of Polat for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Yoo with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Maddalena further discloses further comprising: presenting a first diagram to the patient via the first computerized screen; and enabling the patient to select or make at least one input via the remote device, the input corresponding to an axis measurement (Col. 12, Line 25 – Col. 13, Line 25, Col. 14, Lines 33-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the method set forth above for claim 7, Maddalena further discloses further comprising: presenting a second diagram to the patient via the first computerized screen; and enabling the patient to select or make at least one input via the remote device, the input corresponding to a cylinder measurement (Col. 12, Line 25 – Col. 13, Line 25, Col. 14, Lines 37-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Maddalena further discloses further comprising: determining whether the patient is nearsighted or farsighted by presenting a colourblocked diagram to the patient via the computerized screen; and enabling the patient to select an input corresponding to a part of the colourblocked diagram (Col. 17, Lines 53-55, Col. 18, Lines 8-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Maddalena further discloses further comprising providing the corrective lens prescription to the patient via the patient terminal or the remote device (Col. 6, Lines 37-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Yoo discloses a system for determining a corrective for a patient (Paragraph 87), separately for each eye of the patient, the system comprising: a patient terminal including a first computerized screen (130/140); and a remote device (150) with a second computerized screen (see Figs. 10A-F, Paragraph 106), display a figure on the first computerized screen (130/140) (see Figs. 10A-F), and enable the patient (190) to make at least one input via the remote device (150) to change a size of the figure (Paragraphs 104, 114 – the size of the displayed indicia is changed based on the input of the patient).
Yoo discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify lens prescription, and providing the patient with a corrective lenses prescription for the patient's preferred type of corrective lenses, wherein the system is configured to: receive a link in the remote device to enable the patient to launch an interface on the remote device for interacting with the patient terminal in a hand held manner, wherein interacting includes receiving instructions from a server and enabling the patient to make at least one input to the server via the remote device over a communication interface to control the first computerized screen from a distance, the remote device configured to use the link to be in communication with the first computerized screen through the server; wherein the input corresponds to a sphere measurement of the patient.
In the same field of endeavor, Polat discloses wherein the system is configured to: receive a link (“authorization codes”) in the remote device (118) to enable the patient to launch an interface on the remote device (118) for interacting with the patient terminal in a hand held manner (Paragraphs 49, 65), wherein interacting includes receiving instructions from a server and enabling the patient to make at least one input to the server via the remote device (118) over a communication interface to control the first computerized screen from a distance (see Figs. 1, 9, Paragraphs 48, 49), the remote device (118) configured to use the link to be in communication with the first computerized screen through the server (Paragraph 49). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Yoo with wherein the system is configured to: receive a link in the remote device to enable the patient to launch an interface on the remote device for interacting with the patient terminal in a hand held manner, wherein interacting includes receiving instructions from a server and enabling the patient to make at least one input to the server via the remote device over a communication interface to control the first computerized screen from a distance, the remote device configured to use the link to be in communication with the first computerized screen through the server of Polat for the purpose of exchanging information and providing accessibility to sessions (Paragraphs 48, 49).
Yoo teaches a system and method for visual testing. Although Yoo does not specify corrective lens prescriptions, Paragraphs 143, 144, 161, 163, 183, 188 and 191 all teach a quantifying or calculation step to output a score as the patient’s assessment results wherein the output is sent to a specialist for further processing or determination. In addition, although Yoo does not explicitly teach the input corresponding to a sphere measurement, the tests presented in Yoo are capable of determining the spherical component. Maddalena is presented to provide further evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of interpreting the teachings of Yoo as that presented in the claim and, also, realizing the required steps of the claim through the teachings of Yoo.
In addition, in the same field of endeavor, Maddalena discloses lens prescription (see Fig. 7, Col. 27, Line 57 – Col. 28, Line 14), and providing the patient with a corrective lenses prescription for the patient's preferred type of corrective lenses (see Fig. 7, Col. 27, Line 57 – Col. 28, Line 14), wherein the input corresponds to a sphere measurement of the patient (Col. 11, Lines 51-58, Col. 13, Lines 35-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Yoo and Polat with lens prescription, and providing the patient with a corrective lenses prescription for the patient's preferred type of corrective lenses, wherein the input corresponds to a sphere measurement of the patient of Maddalena for the purpose of providing a more convenient and inexpensive method and system for optical examinations (Col. 1, Lines 59-61).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Yoo further discloses wherein the remote device is a smartphone, a cell phone, or a tablet computer (Paragraph 78).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the method and system set forth above for claims 1 and 11, Polat further discloses wherein the link is received via a SMS text message (Paragraphs 48, 49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method and system of Yoo and Maddalena with the teachings of Polat for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 14, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the system set forth above for claim 11, Maddalena further discloses wherein the system is configured for launching the interface for interacting with the system via a browser (202) (see Fig. 2, Col. 7, Lines 10-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the system of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 11.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the method and system set forth above for claims 1 and 11, Polat further discloses wherein the communication interface is the internet (Paragraphs 56, 74). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method and system of Yoo and Maddalena with the teachings of Polat for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 16, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the system set forth above for claim 11, Polat further discloses wherein the system is further adapted to present another figure to the patient via the first computerized screen, the figure being large enough to be seen clearly by the patient (Paragraphs 147, 148), and enable the patient to make at least one input via the remote device to decrease the size of the figure until it can barely be make out by the patient (Paragraphs 147, 148). In addition, Maddalena further discloses the input corresponding to another sphere measurement (see Fig. 7, Col. 28, Lines 1-5). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the system of Yoo with the teachings of Polat for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 11. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the system of Yoo with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 11. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 17, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the system set forth above for claim 11, Maddalena further discloses wherein the system is further adapted to present a first diagram to the patient via the first computerized screen and enable the patient to make at least one input via the remote device, the input corresponding to an axis measurement (Col. 12, Line 25 – Col. 13, Line 25, Col. 14, Lines 33-36). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the system of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 11. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 18, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the system set forth above for claim 17, Maddalena further discloses wherein the system is further adapted to present a second diagram to the patient via the first computerized screen and enable the patient to select at least one input via the remote device, the input corresponding to a cylinder measurement (Col. 12, Line 25 – Col. 13, Line 25, Col. 14, Lines 37-47). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the system of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 11. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 19, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the system set forth above for claim 11, Maddalena further discloses wherein the system is further adapted to determine whether the patient is nearsighted or farsighted by presenting a colourblocked diagram to the patient via the computerized screen and enabling the patient to select an input corresponding to a part of the colourblocked diagram (Col. 17, Lines 53-55, Col. 18, Lines 8-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the system of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 11. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Regarding claim 20, Yoo, Polat and Maddalena teach the system set forth above for claim 11, Maddalena further discloses wherein the system is further adapted to provide the corrective lens prescription to the patient via the patient terminal or the remote device (Col. 6, Lines 37-41). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the system of Yoo and Polat with the teachings of Maddalena for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 11. It has been held that the recitation that an element is “adapted to” perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform. It does not constitute a limitation in any patentable sense. In re Hutchison, 69 USPQ 138.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that Yoo, Polat and Maddalena do not disclose or teach the claims as presented.
Yoo discloses a method for performing a vision test using a patient terminal including a first computerized screen (130/140) and a remote device (150) with a second computerized screen (see Figs. 10A-F, Paragraph 106), wherein a figure is displayed on the first computerized screen (130/140) and the patient (190) makes at least one input via the remote device (150) that changes a size of the figure (see Paragraphs 104, 114). Although Yoo does not specify corrective lens prescriptions, Paragraphs 143, 144, 161, 163, 183, 188 and 191 all teach a quantifying or calculation step to output a score as the patient’s assessment results wherein the output is sent to a specialist for further processing or determination. In addition, although Yoo does not explicitly teach the input corresponding to a sphere measurement, the tests presented in Yoo are capable of determining the spherical component. Maddalena was presented solely to provide further evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art is capable of interpreting the teachings of Yoo as that presented in the claim and, also, realizing the required steps of the claim through the teachings of Yoo. See Maddalena Fig. 7, Col. 11, Lines 51-58, Col. 13, Lines 35-37 and Col. 27, Line 57 – Col. 28, Line 14.
The limitation “receiving, in the remote device, a link to enable the patient to launch an interface on the remote device for interacting with the patient terminal in a hand held manner, wherein interacting includes receiving instructions from a server and enabling the patient to make at least one input to the server via the remote device over a communication interface to control the first computerized screen from a distance, the remote device configured to use the link to be in communication with the first computerized screen through the server” is taught and capable of being realized by one of ordinary skill in the art with the teachings of Yoo, Polat and Maddalena, alone or in combination.
Fig. 27 and Paragraph 132 of Yoo teaches a visual testing system (2700) wherein a subject (2750) uses a multi-touch device (2720) that is wirelessly connected to a control unit (2730) via a wireless link (2722). Paragraph 132 further teaches that the wireless link (2722) utilizes Blutetooth or 802.11 protocols which require a link to establish the wireless connection between multi-touch device (2720) and the control unit (2730) in order to control display device (2710); wherein these references can be interpreted as the remote device, the server and the patient terminal, respectively.
In addition, Paragraphs 48, 49 and 65 of Polat teach a hand held device (118) capable of being connected to a server (110) and another computing device. The server (110) connects to the hand held device (118) via internet or phone network through an application program and an authorization code in which a link is required. Fig. 9 and Paragraph 137 further teach that the display screen (912), which presents the test, and the I/O interface device (918), which receives responses of the subject, are connected through a remote server (922). The arrangement of the connection between the devices, as presented in the claims, is realized by the teachings of Polat. With these teachings, Yoo and Polat disclose for one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret and/or realize the configuration presented in independent claims 1 and 11. For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
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 MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 6/23/2026
Prosecution Insights