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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-4 and 9-19 in the reply filed on 1/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 7/25/2023, 4/17/2024, 10/29/2024, 11/14/2024, 4/16/2025, 8/08/2025, and 10/10/2025 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) what could be a purely mental process of creating a response plan for visual devices, which is akin to the creation of a database, see Ex parte Kimizuka, 2018-001081 (May 15, 2019). The responses about the observed glare and targets could be made in the mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no tangible products are made such as the calculated information about the responses and glares observed or detected. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because although the claim recites that the device shall “calculate an index for the glare felt” it has been held that implementing a mental process by generic computer means does not amount to a practical application or significantly more than the judicial exception, see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h).
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (JPO 2018-086304 A). An English machine translation has been provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 1, Zhou discloses a visual function examination device (Fig 1, Fig 5, [0012], ophthalmologic apparatus 1) comprising: a response information acquisition unit (processing unit 9) configured to acquire response information indicating a response ([0040], response from subject) about glare felt by a subject to a visual target based on a glare illusion (Fig 5, glare light source 13n); and a glare index calculation unit ([0044], inspection unit 110 includes at least a part of the processing unit 9) configured to calculate an index ([0040], prescription value based on the response from the subject) for the glare felt by the subject on the basis of the response information acquired by the response information acquisition unit ([0040], subjective measurement is performed).
Regarding claim 2, Zhou discloses further comprising: a glare illusion image presentation unit configured to present a glare illusion image that is an image including the visual target ([0040], visual target projected onto the fundus Ef); and a response input operation reception unit configured to receive an operation of inputting the response to the glare illusion image presented by the glare illusion image presentation unit ([0040], selection of the target and response thereto are repeatedly performed at the discretion of the examiner), wherein the response information acquisition unit acquires the response input by the operation received by the response input operation reception unit as the response information ([0040], processing unit 9 determines the prescription value based on the response from the subject).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou discloses wherein the response information acquisition unit acquires the response information indicating a plurality of responses about the glare felt by the subject for a plurality of visual targets when the plurality of visual targets that cause the glare illusion to different degrees are presented in a prescribed order, and wherein the index calculation unit calculates the index on the basis of the response information acquired by the response information acquisition unit ([0029], [0098], processing unit 9 selects and presents the next target based on the response of the subject, and it repeat this).
Regarding claim 9, Zhou discloses wherein the response information acquisition unit acquires the response information indicating a plurality of responses about the glare felt by the subject for a plurality of visual targets when the plurality of visual targets that cause the glare illusion to different degrees are presented in a prescribed order, and wherein the index calculation unit calculates the index on the basis of the response information acquired by the response information acquisition unit ([0029], [0098], processing unit 9 selects and presents the next target based on the response of the subject, and it repeat this).
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 and 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (JPO 2018-086304 A) in view of Nakamura (EP 3482675 A1). An English machine translation has been provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 3, Zhou discloses the invention as described within claim 2 but does not teach further comprising: a parameter acquisition unit configured to acquire a center region parameter that is a parameter for a center region included in the glare illusion image as a parameter for generating the glare illusion image, and an induction region parameter that is a parameter for an induction region included in the glare illusion image; and a glare illusion image generation unit configured to generate the glare illusion image on the basis of the center region parameter and the induction region parameter acquired by the parameter acquisition unit. However, within a similar endeavor, Nakamura teaches further comprising: a parameter acquisition unit configured to acquire a center region parameter that is a parameter for a center region included in the glare illusion image as a parameter for generating the glare illusion image, and an induction region parameter that is a parameter for an induction region included in the glare illusion image; and a glare illusion image generation unit configured to generate the glare illusion image on the basis of the center region parameter and the induction region parameter acquired by the parameter acquisition unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Regarding claim 10, Zhou discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach a spectacle lens presentation system comprising: a visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens presentation device, wherein the spectacle lens presentation device includes a spectacle lens decision unit configured to decide on spectacle lenses suitable for the subject on the basis of the index calculated by the visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens information presentation unit configured to present information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit. However, Nakamura teaches a spectacle lens presentation system comprising: a visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens presentation device, wherein the spectacle lens presentation device includes a spectacle lens decision unit configured to decide on spectacle lenses suitable for the subject on the basis of the index calculated by the visual function examination device ([0050], obtaining, based on the result of the visual function examination, an optical characteristic of an optical member for compensating the visual function of the subject); and a spectacle lens information presentation unit configured to present information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou discloses the invention as described within claim 2 but does not teach a spectacle lens presentation system comprising: a visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens presentation device, wherein the spectacle lens presentation device includes a spectacle lens decision unit configured to decide on spectacle lenses suitable for the subject on the basis of the index calculated by the visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens information presentation unit configured to present information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit. However, Nakamura teaches a spectacle lens presentation system comprising: a visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens presentation device, wherein the spectacle lens presentation device includes a spectacle lens decision unit configured to decide on spectacle lenses suitable for the subject on the basis of the index calculated by the visual function examination device ([0050], obtaining, based on the result of the visual function examination, an optical characteristic of an optical member for compensating the visual function of the subject); and a spectacle lens information presentation unit configured to present information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Regarding claim 12, Zhou in view of Nakamura discloses the invention as described within claim 3 and Nakamura further teaches a spectacle lens presentation system comprising: a visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens presentation device, wherein the spectacle lens presentation device includes a spectacle lens decision unit configured to decide on spectacle lenses suitable for the subject on the basis of the index calculated by the visual function examination device([0050], obtaining, based on the result of the visual function examination, an optical characteristic of an optical member for compensating the visual function of the subject); and a spectacle lens information presentation unit configured to present information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Regarding claim 13, Zhou discloses the invention as described within claim 4 but does not teach a spectacle lens presentation system comprising: a visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens presentation device, wherein the spectacle lens presentation device includes a spectacle lens decision unit configured to decide on spectacle lenses suitable for the subject on the basis of the index calculated by the visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens information presentation unit configured to present information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit. However, Nakamura teaches a spectacle lens presentation system comprising: a visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens presentation device, wherein the spectacle lens presentation device includes a spectacle lens decision unit configured to decide on spectacle lenses suitable for the subject on the basis of the index calculated by the visual function examination device ([0050], obtaining, based on the result of the visual function examination, an optical characteristic of an optical member for compensating the visual function of the subject); and a spectacle lens information presentation unit configured to present information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou discloses the invention as described within claim 9 but does not teach a spectacle lens presentation system comprising: a visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens presentation device, wherein the spectacle lens presentation device includes a spectacle lens decision unit configured to decide on spectacle lenses suitable for the subject on the basis of the index calculated by the visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens information presentation unit configured to present information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit. However, Nakamura teaches a spectacle lens presentation system comprising: a visual function examination device; and a spectacle lens presentation device, wherein the spectacle lens presentation device includes a spectacle lens decision unit configured to decide on spectacle lenses suitable for the subject on the basis of the index calculated by the visual function examination device ([0050], obtaining, based on the result of the visual function examination, an optical characteristic of an optical member for compensating the visual function of the subject); and a spectacle lens information presentation unit configured to present information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou in view of Nakamura discloses the invention as described within claim 10 and Nakamura teaches wherein the spectacle lens presentation device further includes a spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0059], optical lenses for eyeglasses having lenses) configured to generate a spectacle lens wearing image that is a glare illusion image including the visual target viewed when the subject has worn the spectacle lenses on the basis of the information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit (Fig 4, [0101], CPU 14 makes the analysis part 23 perform an analysis by using a CA diagram); and a spectacle lens wearing image presentation unit configured to present the spectacle lens wearing image generated by the spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou in view of Nakamura discloses the invention as described within claim 11 and Nakamura teaches wherein the spectacle lens presentation device further includes a spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0059], optical lenses for eyeglasses having lenses) configured to generate a spectacle lens wearing image that is a glare illusion image including the visual target viewed when the subject has worn the spectacle lenses on the basis of the information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit (Fig 4, [0101], CPU 14 makes the analysis part 23 perform an analysis by using a CA diagram); and a spectacle lens wearing image presentation unit configured to present the spectacle lens wearing image generated by the spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou in view of Nakamura discloses the invention as described within claim 12 and Nakamura teaches wherein the spectacle lens presentation device further includes a spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0059], optical lenses for eyeglasses having lenses) configured to generate a spectacle lens wearing image that is a glare illusion image including the visual target viewed when the subject has worn the spectacle lenses on the basis of the information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit (Fig 4, [0101], CPU 14 makes the analysis part 23 perform an analysis by using a CA diagram); and a spectacle lens wearing image presentation unit configured to present the spectacle lens wearing image generated by the spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Regarding claim 18, Zhou in view of Nakamura discloses the invention as described within claim 13 and Nakamura teaches wherein the spectacle lens presentation device further includes a spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0059], optical lenses for eyeglasses having lenses) configured to generate a spectacle lens wearing image that is a glare illusion image including the visual target viewed when the subject has worn the spectacle lenses on the basis of the information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit (Fig 4, [0101], CPU 14 makes the analysis part 23 perform an analysis by using a CA diagram); and a spectacle lens wearing image presentation unit configured to present the spectacle lens wearing image generated by the spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Regarding claim 19, Zhou in view of Nakamura discloses the invention as described within claim 14 and Nakamura teaches wherein the spectacle lens presentation device further includes a spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0059], optical lenses for eyeglasses having lenses) configured to generate a spectacle lens wearing image that is a glare illusion image including the visual target viewed when the subject has worn the spectacle lenses on the basis of the information about the spectacle lenses decided on by the spectacle lens decision unit (Fig 4, [0101], CPU 14 makes the analysis part 23 perform an analysis by using a CA diagram); and a spectacle lens wearing image presentation unit configured to present the spectacle lens wearing image generated by the spectacle lens wearing image generation unit ([0114], possible to simulate the visibility in the use environment by determining a spectral distribution of a light source which is dominant in an environment where the subject uses the optical member such as the optical lens, and using the spectral distribution for the calculation of the optical characteristic of the optical member). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Zhou with the components of Nakamura for the purpose of optimizing the number of optical members needed for the evaluation of an optical characteristic (Nakamura, [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nordstrom (20180160896) and Coelho (9420945) are examples of an ophthalmic diagnostic testing device, and in particular to graphical user interface.
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