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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) filed 01/30/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrafa et al. (USP No. 10,799,109), hereinafter “Carrafa”, in view of Lane et al. (USPG Pub No. 2020/0029802), hereinafter “Lane”.
Regarding claim 1, Carrafa discloses a vision screening system (see Fig. 1), comprising: an external medium (130) displaying a vision test and a code (see Figs. 1-2B, Col. 6, Line 62 – Col. 7, Line 17); at least one camera (145) configured to capture an image of the external medium (130) (see Figs. 1-2B, Col. 6, Line 62 – Col. 7, Line 17); at least one input device configured to detect, from a subject, a response of the subject to viewing to the vision test (Col. 11, Lines 40-49); and a processor (see Fig. 1) configured to: identify the code based on the image of the external medium (130) (Col. 6, Line 62 – Col. 7, Line 17); identify the vision test based on the code (Col. 10, Lines 36-41, 60-62, Col. 11, Lines 23-39); determine based on the vision test and the response, whether an eye of the subject is characterized by a condition (Col. 11, Lines 50-56); and generate an output indicating whether the eye is characterized by the condition (Col. 11, Lines 50-56), wherein the at least one camera (145), the at least one input device (160), and the processor (150) are integrated into a handheld housing (see Fig. 1, Col. 5, Lines 55-67, Col. 6, Lines 7-20). Carrafa discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify and the external medium is configured to be coupled to the handheld housing. Fig. 1 of Carrafa, along with the corresponding disclosure, teaches that first and second devices (120, 130) are interconnected via network (190). Configuring the elements of the claim to be “coupled” is capable of being interpreted as either communicatively or mechanically/physically. Lane is presented to teach the latter. In the same field of endeavor, Lane discloses and the external medium is configured to be coupled to the handheld housing (Paragraph 92, Lines 20-24). 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 vision screening system of Carrafa with and the external medium is configured to be coupled to the handheld housing of Lane for the purpose of providing accurate vision screening determinations in real time (Paragraph 4, Paragraph 92, Lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 2, Carrafa discloses wherein the image is a first image, the condition is a first condition (see Figs. 1-2B, Col. 11, Lines 50-56). Carrafa and Lane teach the vision screening system set forth above for claim 1, Lane further discloses and the system further comprises a light source configured to project infrared radiation onto the eye of the subject (Paragraph 59), the camera being further configured to capture a second image of the eye (Paragraph 59), the second image being indicative of a response of the eye to the infrared radiation (Paragraph 21, 58, 59); and the processor being further configured to: determine, based on the second image, whether the eye is characterized by a second condition (Paragraph 91); and generate an additional output indicating whether the eye is characterized by the second condition (Paragraph 91). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the vision screening system of Carrafa with the teachings of Lane for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Carrafa further discloses further comprising a transceiver, wherein the processor is configured to at least one of: cause the transceiver to provide a first signal, via a network, to an electronic device indicating whether the eye is characterized by the first condition (Col. 6, Line 59 – Col. 7, Line 41); or cause the transceiver to provide a second signal, via the network, to the electronic device indicating whether the eye is characterized by the second condition (Col. 6, Line 59 – Col. 7, Line 41).
Regarding claim 4, Carrafa further discloses wherein the external medium (130) comprises at least one of: a printed substrate; a projector configured to project the vision test and the code; or a screen configured to display the vision test and the code (see Figs. 1-3).
Regarding claim 5, Carrafa further discloses wherein the vision test comprises at least one of: a color vision test; a reading comprehension test; a concussion test; a near vision test; a reading speed test; or a visual acuity test (Col. 11, Lines 27-39).
Regarding claim 6, Carrafa further discloses wherein the at least one input device comprises at least one of: a microphone configured to detect an audible signal indicative of the response; a touch sensor configured to detect a touch signal indicative of the response; or a button configured to receive a press signal indicative of the response (Col. 5, Lines 63-65, Col. 11, Lines 40-44).
Regarding claim 7, Carrafa and Lane teach the vision screening system set forth above for claim 1, Lane further discloses wherein the image is a first image, and the at least one camera is configured to capture a second image of the eye, the second image being indicative of the response (Paragraphs 32, 33, 76). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the vision screening system of Carrafa with the teachings of Lane for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrafa (USP No. 10,799,109) in view of Kay (GB 2601747 A).
Regarding claim 9, Carrafa discloses a method (see Fig. 1), comprising: capturing an image of an external medium (130) (see Figs. 1-2B, Col. 6, Line 62 – Col. 7, Line 17); identifying a vision test associated with the external medium (130) based on the image, a code displayed by the external medium (Col. 6, Line 62 – Col. 7, Line 17, Col. 10, Lines 36-41, 60-62, Col. 11, Lines 23-39); receiving feedback characterizing the vision test from a subject (Col. 10, Lines 36-41, 60-62, Col. 11, Lines 23-39); and determining whether the subject has an ocular condition based on the feedback characterizing the vision test (Col. 11, Lines 50-56). Carrafa discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the vision test is identified via a code. In the same field of endeavor, Kay discloses wherein the vision test is identified via a code (Pg. 18, Lines 13-15). 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 Carrafa with wherein the vision test is identified via a code of Kay for the purpose of directing the user to the desired data and determining appropriate testing parameters for the user (Pg. 18, Lines 14-15).
Regarding claim 11, Carrafa further discloses further comprising: receiving, from the external medium, at least one of an RFID signal or an NFC signal identifying the vision test (Col. 6, Lines 40-58).
Regarding claim 12, Carrafa further discloses wherein receiving feedback characterizing the vision test from the subject comprises receiving at least one of: a signal indicative of the subject tracing a shape on a substrate; an audio signal; or a signal indicative of the subject selecting an item on a substrate (Col. 5, Lines 63-65, Col. 11, Lines 40-44).
Regarding claim 14, Carrafa further discloses further comprising: transmitting, to an external device, a signal indicating whether the subject is suspected to have the ocular condition (Col. 11, Lines 50-56); and storing the determination of whether the subject has the ocular condition (Col. 11, Lines 50-56).
Regarding claim 15, Carrafa further discloses further comprising outputting a signal indicating whether the subject is suspected to have the ocular condition (Col. 11, Lines 50-56).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrafa (USP No. 10,799,109) in view of Kay (GB 2601747 A) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Lane et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0125183), hereinafter “Lane”.
Regarding claim 13, Carrafa discloses wherein determining whether the subject has the ocular condition (Col. 11, Lines 50-56). Carrafa and Kay disclose the claimed invention except for comprises: identifying a key associated with the vision test; determining one or more discrepancies between the key and the feedback; and determining that the subject has the ocular condition based on the one or more discrepancies. In the same field of endeavor, Lane discloses comprises: identifying a key associated with the vision test (Paragraph 78); determining one or more discrepancies between the key and the feedback (Paragraph 78); and determining that the subject has the ocular condition based on the one or more discrepancies (Paragraph 78). 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 Carrafa and Kay with comprises: identifying a key associated with the vision test; determining one or more discrepancies between the key and the feedback; and determining that the subject has the ocular condition based on the one or more discrepancies of Lane for the purpose of conveniently performing critical line visual acuity screening examinations in the desired setting (Paragraph 5).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrafa (USP No. 10,799,109) in view of Kay (GB 2601747 A) and Lane (USPG Pub No. 2020/0029802).
Regarding claim 16, Carrafa discloses a device (see Fig. 1), comprising: a processor (see Fig. 1); and memory storing instructions that (see Fig. 1), when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising: receiving a first signal from an external medium (130) (see Figs. 1-2B); identifying a vision test associated with the external medium based on the first signal (Col. 6, Line 62 – Col. 7, Line 17, Col. 10, Lines 36-41, 60-62, Col. 11, Lines 23-39); receiving a second signal from an input device, the second signal indicating a response of a subject viewing to the vision test (Col. 6, Line 59 – Col. 7, Line 41, Col. 11, Lines 50-56); and determining, based on the vision test and the second signal, whether the subject has an ocular condition (Col. 6, Line 59 – Col. 7, Line 41, Col. 11, Lines 50-56). Carrafa discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify indicative of a code for a vision test, the external medium coupled to the device. In the same field of endeavor, Kay discloses indicative of a code for a vision test (Pg. 18, Lines 13-15). 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 device of Carrafa with indicative of a code for a vision test of Kay for the purpose of directing the user to the desired data and determining appropriate testing parameters for the user (Pg. 18, Lines 14-15). Fig. 1 of Carrafa, along with the corresponding disclosure, teaches that first and second devices (120, 130) are interconnected via network (190). Configuring the elements of the claim to be “coupled” is capable of being interpreted as either communicatively or mechanically/physically. Lane is presented to teach the latter. In the same field of endeavor, Lane discloses the external medium coupled to the device (Paragraph 92, Lines 20-24). 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 device of Carrafa with the external medium coupled to the device of Lane for the purpose of providing accurate vision screening determinations in real time (Paragraph 4, Paragraph 92, Lines 23-24).
Regarding claim 18, Carrafa further discloses further comprising: a transceiver configured to receive the second signal from the external medium, the second signal comprising at least one of an RFID signal or an NFC signal (Col. 6, Lines 40-58).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrafa (USP No. 10,799,109) in view of Kay (GB 2601747 A) and Lane (USPG Pub No. 2020/0029802) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tran et al. (USPG Pub No. 2021/0290053), hereinafter “Tran”.
Regarding claim 19, Carrafa discloses further comprising: one or more touch sensors configured to detect an indication of the subject touching the external medium (130) (Col. 6, Lines 7-11). Carrafa, Kay and Lane disclose the claimed invention except for wherein the second signal includes a shape traced by the subject touching the external medium. In the same field of endeavor, Tran discloses wherein the second signal includes a shape traced by the subject touching the external medium (Paragraph 216 – “touch screens or other touch-sensitive devices such as single or multi-point resistive or capacitive trackpads”). 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 device of Carrafa, Kay and Lane with wherein the second signal includes a shape traced by the subject touching the external medium of Tran for the purpose of providing the desired mechanism for interacting with a user (Paragraph 216).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carrafa (USP No. 10,799,109) in view of Kay (GB 2601747 A) and Lane (USPG Pub No. 2020/0029802) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Lane et al. (USPG Pub No. 2019/0125183), hereinafter “Lane ‘183”.
Regarding claim 20, Carrafa discloses wherein determining whether the subject has the ocular condition comprises (Col. 11, Lines 50-56). Carrafa, Kay and Lane disclose the claimed invention except for identifying a key associated with the vision test; determining one or more discrepancies between the key and the second signal; and determining that the subject has the ocular condition based on the one or more discrepancies between the key and the second signal. In the same field of endeavor, Lane ‘183 discloses identifying a key associated with the vision test (Paragraph 78); determining one or more discrepancies between the key and the second signal (Paragraph 78); and determining that the subject has the ocular condition based on the one or more discrepancies between the key and the second signal (Paragraph 78). 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 device of Carrafa, Kay and Lane with identifying a key associated with the vision test; determining one or more discrepancies between the key and the second signal; and determining that the subject has the ocular condition based on the one or more discrepancies between the key and the second signal of Lane ‘183 for the purpose of conveniently performing critical line visual acuity screening examinations in the desired setting (Paragraph 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9, 11-16 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Lane and Kay cure the deficiencies of Carrafa and address the subject matter challenged by Applicant.
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 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 6/9/2026
Prosecution Insights