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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 27, 35 and 41 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.
Applicant has provided amendments to independent claims 27, 35 and 41 to overcome the previous 112(b) rejection. The amendments fail to overcome the previous 112(b) rejections. The amendments state” wherein said at least one control unit is configured to define in the scene picture at least one scene zone implying transparency for a corresponding virtual scene image and to reduce luminance of said at least one scene zone in the superimposition area between the visual test image and the scene image. The examiner interprets this limitation to mean that the scene zone is implying transparency and the scene zone is reducing luminance of the scene zone. Therefore, the examiner still does not understand what is meant by the phrase” implying transparency”. Therefore the 112(b) rejection is maintained.
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 27-39 and 41 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.
Regarding claims 27, 35 and 41 the limitation " one scene zone implying transparency for a corresponding virtual scene image and to reduce luminance of said at least one scene zone in the superimposition area between the visual test image and the scene image” in claim 27 is a relative limitation which renders the claim indefinite. The limitation "implying transparency” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The claim, in light of the specification, is unclear as to what is meant by "the scene zone has a luminance that is different for the corresponding virtual scene image and in the superimposition area between the visual test image and the scene image”. The specification does not provide a clear explanation to what is meant by implying transparency. The examiner doesn’t know if the zone is transparent or not. For the sake of compact prosecution, the limitation “one scene zone implying transparency for a corresponding virtual scene image and to reduce luminance of said at least one scene zone in the superimposition area between the visual test image and the scene image” is understood by the examiner to mean that the luminance of the scene zone is reduced.
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.
Claims 27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0274539 A1) in view of Nakamura (US Patent Publication Number 2014/0211164 A1).
Nauche teaches, as in independent claim 27, an optometry device (Figs, 1) for testing an individual's eye (E), comprising a refraction test unit (30) having a vision correction optical system (32-36) for providing different vision correction power values (¶0067), and a display unit1 (10 and 20) comprising, a projection optical system (13, 14, 15, 16, 24 and 26) adapted to produce from a scene picture (Fig. 4) and from a visual test picture including a functional zone (Fig. 4, ¶0076), respectively, a scene image (SCN) produced along a scene optical path (path in Fig 2 for element 20) of said projection optical system (24 and 26) at a scene distance from the individual's eye (E), and a visual test image (produced from screen 12 of module 10, OPT ¶0054) produced along a visual test optical path (path in Fig. 2 from element 22 that is combine by element 26) of said projection optical system (13, 14, 15, 16, 24 and 26) at a visual test distance from the individual's eye (E) smaller than or equal to said scene distance of projection (Fig. 2, where both images are considered equal when combined at 26) said visual test image (OPT) being superimposed at least partially with said scene image (SCN, Fig. 4), said visual test image being configured to test the individual's vision and comprising at least one optotype or symbol (¶0031) and at least one least one control unit (19 not shown) adapted to control said projection optical system (¶0039 “ change the length of the path between 12 and 16 would modify whole projection system path), allowing the individual's eye (person utilizing the test) to observe the functional zone (the words on the road sign in Fig. 4) of the virtual visual test image (OPT) without contrast decrease (no mention of contrast), at the visual test distance, Nauche fails to teach wherein said at least one control unit is configured so that the luminance of the scene zone is reduced. In a related art, Nakamura teaches an optometry device (Fig. 1) wherein said at least one control unit (100) is configured so that the luminance of the scene zone is reduced (¶0018). the scene image (Fig. 1), allowing the individual's eye (person utilizing the test) to observe the functional zone of the virtual visual test image without contrast decrease, at the visual test distance (¶0161).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche, with the control unit, as taught by Nakamura, for the purpose of providing a visual acuity measurement at high contrast that can be performed by use of the optotype plate having no optotypes different in color density (¶0018).
Nauche teaches, as in independent claim 35, An apparatus comprising: a memory configured to store a set of pictures comprising a visual test picture and a scene picture useful for an optometry device having a vision correction optical system for providing different vision correction power values for testing an individual's eye, the optometry device (Fig. 1) including a projection optical system (13, 14, 15, 16, 24 and 26)) adapted to produce from corresponding scene picture (display 20) and corresponding visual test picture (display 22) including a functional zone (¶0076), respectively, a scene image (SCN) produced along a scene optical path of said projection optical system at a scene distance from the individual's eye (E ), said visual test image being configured to test the individual's vision and comprising at least one optotype or symbol (¶0031) and a visual test image (OPT) produced along a visual test optical path of said projection optical system (13, 14, 15, 16, 24 and 26) at a visual test distance from the individual's eye smaller than or equal to said scene distance of projection Fig. 2, where both images are considered equal when combined at 26), being superimposed at least partially with the scene image (SCN) image, said visual test image being configured to test the individual's vision and comprising at least one optotype or symbol;, Nauche fails to teach wherein said at least one control unit is configured so that the luminance of the scene zone is reduced. In a related art, Nakamura teaches an optometry device (Fig. 1) wherein said at least one control unit (100) is configured so that the luminance of the scene zone is reduced (¶0018). the scene image (Fig. 1), allowing the individual's eye (person utilizing the test) to observe the functional zone of the virtual visual test image without contrast decrease, at the visual test distance (¶0161).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche, with the control unit, as taught by Nakamura, for the purpose of providing a visual acuity measurement at high contrast that can be performed by use of the optotype plate having no optotypes different in color density (¶0018).
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0274539 A1) in view of Nakamura (US Patent Publication Number 2014/0211164 A1) and in further view of Kong (KR Patent Publication Number 102031580 B1).
Nauche and Nakamura fail to teach, as in claim 28, wherein said at least scene zone has a luminance that is different is configured by the control unit to have a predetermined colorimetry distribution compared to the remaining parts of said scene picture, said predetermined colorimetry distribution of the at least scene zone has a luminance that is different being configured by the control unit to have a luminance lower than 100 cd/m2. In a related art, Kong teaches wherein said at least the scene zone has a luminance that is different (brighter or darker) is configured by the control unit (200) to have a predetermined colorimetry distribution (Page 8, paragraph 8, Page 10, paragraph 3 “color temperature 7600k to 5200k”) to the remaining parts of said scene picture (display), said predetermined colorimetry distribution (color temperature 7600k to 5200k) of the at least scene zone has a luminance that is different being configured by the control unit (200) to have a luminance lower than 100 cd/m2 (Table 1 has the lowest luminance value to be 18 nits which equals 18 cd/m2 ).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche and Nakamura, with the control unit, as taught by Kong, for the purpose of providing a control signal directly affects the brightness and image quality of the display device (Page 2, paragraph 6).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0274539 A1) in view of Nakamura (US Patent Publication Number 2014/0211164 A1) and in further view of Kanazawa (US Patent Publication 2009/0086166 A1).
Nauche and Nakamura fail to teach, as in claim 29, wherein a predetermined colorimetry distribution of the at least scene zone that has a luminance that is different is configured by the control unit to have a color in the RGB color model whose each component is below 40. In a related art, Kanazawa teaches wherein a predetermined colorimetry distribution (¶0024) of the at least scene zone (101) that has a luminance that is different is configured by the control unit (75) to have a color in the RGB color model whose each component is below 40 (¶0032).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche and Nakamura , with the control unit, as taught by Kanazawa, for the purpose of providing an optotype presenting apparatus by which a red optotype and a green optotype of a red-green binocular visual performance test chart can be visually perceived independently by right and left eyes (¶0009).
Claims 30 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0274539 A1) in view of Nakamura (US Patent Publication Number 2014/0211164 A1) and in further view of Lussier (US Patent Publication Number 2020/0272232 A1).
Nauche and Nakamura fail to teach, as in claim 30, wherein the at least one control unit drives the projection optical system so that a peripheral zone of said scene zone implying transparency is fuzzy. In a related art, Lussier teaches an optometry device for testing an individual's eye, wherein the at least one control unit (¶0206 “phoropter/refractor device”) drives the projection optical system (¶0206 “change in focus“) so that a peripheral zone (outer edges of the symbol E) said scene zone implying transparency is fuzzy (Fig. 29B).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche, with the control unit, as taught by Lussier, for the purpose of providing a way so user could be presented with multiple images (e.g. 2 side-by-side, 4, 6 or 9 in a square array, etc.) and indicate which image is clearer and/or most comfortable to view. (¶0206).
Nauche and Nakamura fail to teach, as in claim 31, wherein said visual test distance is modifiable, and wherein said visual test image dimensions changes in function of visual test distance, said at least one control unit being configured to modify the dimensions of the at least scene zone has a luminance that is different according to the dimensions of the visual test image. In a related art, Lussier teaches an optometry device for testing an individual's eye, wherein said visual test distance is modifiable (See Fig. 29A), and wherein said visual test image (2905) dimensions changes in function of visual test distance (¶0206) said at least one control unit (phoropter/refractor device) being configured to modify the dimensions of the at least scene zone has a luminance that is different according to the dimensions of the visual test image (¶0206 “image 2905 is located on designated image plane 2907 while image 2915 is located on designated image plane 2917, which is located further away. Optionally, as illustrated herein, the size of the image may be increased with increased depth so that all images displayed are perceived to be of a similar relative size by the use”).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche and Nakamura , with the control unit, as taught by Lussier, for the purpose of providing a way so user could be presented with multiple images (e.g. 2 side-by-side, 4, 6 or 9 in a square array, etc.) and indicate which image is clearer and/or most comfortable to view (¶0206).
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0274539 A1) in view of Nakamura (US Patent Publication Number 2014/0211164 A1) and in further view of Alberts (US Patent Publication Number 2016/0302710 A1).
Nauche and Nakamura fail to teach as in claim 34, wherein the junction part is made by additive manufacturing. In a related art, Alberts teaches wherein the junction part (370) is made by additive manufacturing (¶0100).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche and Nakamura , with the junction part made by additive manufacturing, as taught by Alberts, for the purpose of providing housing that is lightweight and durable material (¶0100).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0274539 A1) in view of Nakamura (US Patent Publication Number 2014/0211164 A1) and in further view of Bassi (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0160539 A1).
Nauche and Nakamura fail to teach, as in claim 36, wherein the scene picture comprises at least two opposed bottom vanishing lines oriented in the direction of the scene zone implying transparency, defining background areas and foreground areas along the vanishing lines, and wherein the functional zone of the visual test picture is defined such that the functional zone appears on the visual test image as being displayed in a vertical plane for the individual. In a related art, Bassi teaches wherein the scene picture (Figs. 6a-8b) comprises at least two opposed bottom vanishing lines (52, 64 and 79) oriented in the direction of the scene zone implying transparency, defining background areas and foreground areas (Figs. 6a- 8b) along the vanishing lines (52, 64 and 79), and wherein the functional zone (58,74,79) of the visual test picture is defined such that the functional zone (58,74,79) appears on the visual test image as being displayed in a vertical plane for the individual.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche and Nakamura , with the scene picture, as taught by Bassi, for the purpose of providing a way to correct for rotational distortions of an image projected from a projection source on a viewing surface (¶0006).
Claim 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0274539 A1) in view of Nakamura (US Patent Publication Number 2014/0211164 A1) and in further view of Ohlendorf (EP Patent Number 3 329 837 A1).
Nauche teaches, as in claim 41, a display unit comprising, a projection optical system (13, 14, 15, 16, 24 and 26) adapted to produce from a scene picture and from a visual test picture including a functional zone, respectively (Fig. 4, ¶0076),a scene image (SCN) produced along a scene optical path of said projection optical system (13, 14, 15, 16, 24 and 26) at a scene distance from the individual's eye (E ), and a visual test image (OPT) produced along a visual test optical path of said projection optical system (13, 14, 15, 16, 24 and 26) at a visual test distance from the individual's eye smaller than or equal to said scene distance of projection Fig. 2, where both images are considered equal when combined at 26), being superimposed at least partially with the scene image (SCN), said visual test image being configured to test the individual's vision and comprising at least one optotype or symbol (¶0031) and at least one control unit (19) adapted to control said projection optical system and including the computer program product (¶0039 “ change the length of the path between 12 and 16 would modify the whole projection system path). Nauche fails to teach wherein said at least one control unit is configured so that the luminance of the scene zone is reduced. In a related art, Nakamura teaches an optometry device (Fig. 1) wherein said at least one control unit (100) is configured so that the luminance of the scene zone is reduced (¶0018). the scene image (Fig. 1), allowing the individual's eye (person utilizing the test) to observe the functional zone of the virtual visual test image without contrast decrease, at the visual test distance (¶0161).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche, with the control unit, as taught by Nakamura, for the purpose of providing a visual acuity measurement at high contrast that can be performed by use of the optotype plate having no optotypes different in color density (¶0018).
Nauche and Nakamura fail to teach a computer program product. In a related art Ohlendorf teaches computer program product (¶0055) and a control unit (33) including a data processing device (¶0055).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the optometry device, as taught by Nauche and Nakamura, with the scene picture, as taught by Ohlendorf, for the purpose of providing a display device configured for processing user input (¶0055).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 32, 33 and 37-39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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,
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all of the limitations of claim 32, the one control unit is configured to define in the visual test picture one frame implying transparency for the corresponding virtual visual test image, surrounding the functional zone of the visual test picture, the frame shape features being modified based on said visual test distance so as the functional zone of the visual test image to have shape and an aspect ratio substantially identical for different visual test distances.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all of the limitations of claim 33 which includes a wherein the device comprises a flexible mask and a rigid junction part connecting the flexible mask to a head support of the refraction test unit.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all of the limitations of claim 37 which includes wherein said visual test distance is modifiable at least between a far and a near test distance, and wherein the vanishing lines converge toward a point positioned below the zone implying transparency for far test distance, and above or into said zone implying transparency for near test distance.
The prior art fails to simultaneously teach all of the limitations of claim 38, comprising several visual test pictures and several corresponding scene pictures intended to be displayed successively so as to define a video.
Regarding claim 39 has dependency upon object claim 39.
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 JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
15 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Module 10 has a screen 12 for the virtual image and module 20 has screen 22 for the scene image so the examiner interprets that both make up the display unit.