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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
No claim limitation has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Specifically, claim 1 recite(s) an abstract idea of “providing a display configured for displaying a visual stimulus; forming a visual path between said display and at least one eye of the examinee; displaying on said display at least one visual stimulus including a first visual element having a first color, a second visual element having a second color, and background having a third color, wherein said first, second and third colors are selected such that contrast between a component of said first color and said third color is the same as a contrast between a component of said second color and said third color; and assessing vision of said at least one eye in accordance with said indication and said contrast”. Claim 16 recites an abstract idea of “providing a display configured for displaying a visual stimulus; forming a visual path between said display and at least one eye of the examinee; displaying on said display at least one visual stimulus including a first visual element, a second visual element, and background, wherein contrast between said first visual element and said background is the same as contrast between said background and second visual element; rotating said first and second elements with respect to said background modifying thereby orientation of said first and second visual elements with respect to the background; and assessing vision of said at least one eye in accordance with said indication and said contrast”. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper. The “providing”, “forming”, “displaying” and “rotating” steps can all be performed by a human simply positioning/moving a piece of paper with the visual stimulus thereon in front of the examinee, while the “assessing” step amounts to an evaluation or judgement that can be performed wholly mentally based on the recorded responses from the examinee (step 2A: Prong One).
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the step of “receiving an indication from the examinee regarding detection of at least one of said first and second colors” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, such as mere data gathering, recited at a high level of generality and/or in a well-understood, routine, and conventional way, of the information needed to carry out the claimed algorithm (step 2A: Prong Two.
Moreover, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that contribute an inventive concept, either individually, or in combination, because the claim does not include any limitations that amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, apply or use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (step 2B).
Regarding dependent claims 2-15 and 17-18, the limitations of these dependent claim(s) merely add details to the algorithm which forms the abstract idea, but does not contain any further “additional elements”. Thus, the dependent claim(s) are not significantly more than the extended abstract idea.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Claim 11 depends from itself. As such, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. Moreover, claim 11 recites the limitation "said spherical power" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. A “spherical power” is only previously recited in claim 10. It appears claim 11 should be dependent on claim 10 to resolve both issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horn (US Patent No. 6,260,970 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Horn discloses a method for carrying out an eye examination on an examinee, the method comprising:
providing a display (5) configured for displaying a visual stimulus (8) (see Figure 1 and col. 7, lines 13-17 – “The preferred test program generally calls upon the test subject 9 to identify the appearance of various colored targets, or marks 8, that are momentarily displayed, or flashed, at various locations on the test field 14 on the computer monitor display 5”);
forming a visual path between said display and at least one eye of the examinee (see Figure 1 and col. 6, lines 39-43 – “The test taker 9 is placed a predetermined initial distance D using for example a measuring tool or distance prop, as discussed further below, such initial distance varying depending on the particular monitor 5 size in use”);
displaying on said display at least one visual stimulus including a first visual element having a first color, a second visual element having a second color, and background (14) having a third color (see col. 8, lines 26-29 – “All three color axis can be also be used effectively in this manner (red-blue/purple background; blue-yellow/green background; red-yellow/orange background)”), wherein said first, second and third colors are selected such that contrast between a component of said first color and said third color is the same as a contrast between a component of said second color and said third color (see col. 7, lines 33-37 – “The degree of contrast used to develop the test range included 17 contrast increments as follows: 3%, 5%, 7%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 100%, 120%, 140%, and 200%”);
receiving an indication from the examinee regarding detection of at least one of said first and second colors (see col. 7, lines 13-17 – “The preferred test program generally calls upon the test subject 9 to identify the appearance of various colored targets, or marks 8, that are momentarily displayed, or flashed, at various locations on the test field 14 on the computer monitor display 5” and col. 15, lines 29-35 – “The test subject 9 must try to discern the number of targets 8 presented in each flash. After each event the test subject 9 must identify the number of perceived targets. The perceived number of targets for each event may be recorded between events through the use of a computer mouse 4, whereby the test subject clicks a button on the mouse 4 in rapid succession; one click for each target 8 perceived (step 45)”);
assessing vision of said at least one eye in accordance with said indication and said contrast (see col. 17, lines 35-50 – “Dynamic data exchange may be used to score the test results, permit analysis of various test components, and to ultimately print out the results if desired. A data base may be used to allow scoring of the test results based on statistical comparison with large populations. The test results may be presented in a variety of formats. For example, the test results may be presented by comparing the percent risk of eye disease of the test subject to the percent risk of eye disease for the test taker's age group. Certain test abnormalities, such as significant deficit on the nasal test, are more likely to be glaucoma related. Test subjects whose risk of eye disease, or more specifically glaucoma, is determined to be approximately average or above average can be directed to or presented with appropriate instructions and guidelines”).
Regarding claim 2, Horn discloses said step of displaying at least one visual stimulus includes displaying a series of visual stimuli wherein said contrast has a predetermined value for each one of the visual stimulus (see col. 7, lines 33-37 – “The degree of contrast used to develop the test range included 17 contrast increments as follows: 3%, 5%, 7%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 100%, 120%, 140%, and 200%” and lines 55-61 – “Specifically, the test program tests the subject with nonvarying 90 mm.sup.2 targets 8 of varying color contrast. For most test increments this means varying rgb values relative to the background so that the luminance is constant but the hue--the rgb components--is varied, in contrast to more conventional visual field tests which typically present targets of varying size”), and wherein said step of assessing vision includes assessing the contrast of the visual stimulus at which at least one of said first and second colors is detected (see col. 7, lines 63-65 – “It is rather the color contrast relative to the background 14 that determines threshold and ability to distinguish the symbol 8 from the background 14”).
Regarding claim 3, Horn discloses each one of said visual stimulus includes an orientation having an axis, and wherein said step of displaying visual stimulus includes displaying said visual stimulus at various orientations and said step of assessing vision further includes assessing the axis of said orientation of a visual stimulus of which at least one of said first and second colors are detected (see col. 7, lines 21-24 – “Throughout the test program these marks 8 appear, either alone or in combination with others, at various locations on the test field 14 displayed on the computer monitor 5”).
Regarding claim 4, Horn discloses said first and second visual elements includes lines, wherein for each one of said visual stimulus said orientation includes disposing said lines at a predetermined angle with respect to said background (see col. 7, lines 17-26 – “To keep with the theme of the test program, the various targets or marks 8 may be represented as objects, such as "quarks," "anti-quarks," satellites, planets, spaceships, or the like traveling through space for example. Throughout the test program these marks 8 appear, either alone or in combination with others, at various locations on the test field 14 displayed on the computer monitor 5. These marks 8 preferably have a generally annular diamond shape or a solid diamond shape”).
Regarding claim 5, Horn discloses said series of visual stimuli includes a plurality of visual stimulus such that said lines are disposed at a plurality of angles between 0-180° (see col. 7, lines 17-26 – “To keep with the theme of the test program, the various targets or marks 8 may be represented as objects, such as "quarks," "anti-quarks," satellites, planets, spaceships, or the like traveling through space for example. Throughout the test program these marks 8 appear, either alone or in combination with others, at various locations on the test field 14 displayed on the computer monitor 5. These marks 8 preferably have a generally annular diamond shape or a solid diamond shape”).
Regarding claim 6, Horn discloses said first, second and third colors are selected such that difference between intensity of said component of said first color and intensity of said third color is the same as difference between intensity of said component of said second color and intensity of said third color (see col. 7, lines 55-61 – “Specifically, the test program tests the subject with nonvarying 90 mm.sup.2 targets 8 of varying color contrast. For most test increments this means varying rgb values relative to the background so that the luminance is constant but the hue--the rgb components--is varied, in contrast to more conventional visual field tests which typically present targets of varying size”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn.
Regarding claim 7, Horn teaches said first, second and third colors are determined with RGB parameters, and are selected such that for said first color a first parameter of the RGB parameters includes a first value, and second parameter of the RGB parameters includes a second value, and for said second color a first parameter of the RGB parameters includes the second value and second parameter of the RGB parameters includes the first value, and wherein for the third color a first and second parameter of the RGB parameters includes a third value (see col. 7, lines 55-61 – “Specifically, the test program tests the subject with nonvarying 90 mm.sup.2 targets 8 of varying color contrast. For most test increments this means varying rgb values relative to the background so that the luminance is constant but the hue--the rgb components--is varied, in contrast to more conventional visual field tests which typically present targets of varying size”). Horn does not specifically teach the third value is an average between said first and second values. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the third value be an average between said first and second values, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn, further in view of Atkins et al. (US Publication No. 2007/0166675 A1).
Regarding claim 8, it is noted Horn does not specifically teach said first and second elements are parallel lines disposed such that said lines alternating between said first color and said second color. However, Atkins et al. teaches said first and second elements are parallel lines disposed such that said lines alternating between said first color and said second color (see Figures 5 and 7-8 and [0151] – “The frequency of each Gabor pattern may be represented in cycles (wavelengths) per degree, e.g., c/deg, where the determination of spatial frequency in cycles per degree depends on the distance of the observer from the screen (one exemplary distance value for this purpose used herein is 51 cm, although it should be noted that other distance values may be used as desired, e.g., 57 cm). In one embodiment, the color of the presented patterns may vary pseudo-randomly from trial to trial among colors that map to distinct points in a physiologically motivated chromaticity space (cone contrast space). The colors correspond to +S (increment from white for S cones), -S (decrement from white for S cones), +L/-M (increment for L cones and decrement for M cones), and -L/+M (decrement for L cones, increment for M cones), although other color schemes may be used as desired”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Horn to include said first and second elements are parallel lines disposed such that said lines alternating between said first color and said second color, as disclosed in Atkins et al., so as to improve the cognitive ability of a participant using visual stimuli (see Atkins et al.: Abstract).
Claim(s) 9-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn, further in view of Lee et al. (US Patent No. 9,237,842 B2).
Regarding claim 9, it is noted Horn does not specifically teach said first element includes a first line in said first color having a first width and said second element includes a second line in said second color having a second width, wherein said second line is disposed on top of said first line and wherein said second width is smaller than said first width. However, Lee et al. teaches said first element includes a first line in said first color having a first width and said second element includes a second line in said second color having a second width, wherein said second line is disposed on top of said first line and wherein said second width is smaller than said first width (see Figure 13 and col. 27, line 62-col. 28, line 8 – “In the example embodiment shown in FIG. 13, the line diagram 1304 is a line, or a long thin rectangle on a solid background, wherein the width and height of the line increases when viewed from left to right. The rectangle/line is made up of alternating parts 1301 and 1302. Alternating parts 1301 and 1302 are different colors, one brighter and the other duller, similar to the alternating parts 902 and 904 discussed above. In the embodiment of FIG. 13, part 1302 has a brighter background color, while part 1301 has a duller background color. It should be appreciated that any suitable arrangement of differently sized lines is appropriate. For example, the width and height of the line may decrease from left to right, or the line may be oriented vertically (or at any angle relative to horizontal) as opposed to horizontally”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Horn to include said first element includes a first line in said first color having a first width and said second element includes a second line in said second color having a second width, wherein said second line is disposed on top of said first line and wherein said second width is smaller than said first width, as disclosed in Lee et al., so as to accurately determine the cylinder prescription of a patient based on which part of the first and second lines the patient is able to resolve the different colors (see Lee et al.: col. 28, lines 22-32).
Regarding claim 10, it is noted Horn does not specifically teach said visual path includes a lens having a spherical power, and wherein said step of assessing vision is in accordance with said spherical power. However, Lee et al. teaches said visual path includes a lens having a spherical power, and wherein said step of assessing vision is in accordance with said spherical power (see Figures 8A-D and col. 21, lines 46-58 – “It should be appreciated that the tests shown by example in FIGS. 8A to 8D may also be used to determine if a patient is over or under corrected if performed while wearing corrective lenses. In one example embodiment, the patient performs the same steps described immediately above, individually for each eye, while using their corrective lenses. In this example embodiment, a selection that part 802 with the brighter background is more distinct than part 804 with the duller background suggests that the patient is overcorrected with their present corrective lenses, while a selection that part 804 with the duller background is more distinct than part 802 with the brighter background suggests that the patient is under corrected by their present corrective lenses”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Horn to include said visual path includes a lens having a spherical power, and wherein said step of assessing vision is in accordance with said spherical power, as disclosed in Lee et al., so as to determine if a patient is over or under corrected with their present corrective lenses (see Lee et al.: col. 21, lines 51-58).
Regarding claim 11, Lee et al. teaches modifying said spherical power in accordance with said indication and wherein said step of displaying said visual stimulus includes displaying a plurality of visual stimulus for one or more spherical powers (see col. 20, lines 41-50 – “Referring now to FIGS. 8A, 8B, 8C and 8D, another embodiment of the present disclosure is illustrated, wherein the system displays at least one colorblocked diagram 800 and enables a patient to make at least one input to select a more defined-appearing pan of the diagram, wherein the input corresponds to a determination that the patient is near or far sighted (if not wearing corrective lenses), over or under corrected (if wearing corrective lenses), or otherwise. The colorblocked diagram 800 may be presented once, twice, or more in a series, for each eye”; see also col. 39, line 61-col. 40, line 33).
Regarding claim 12, it is noted Horn does not specifically teach said visual stimulus includes displaying a plurality of visual stimulus each of which having characteristics corresponding to vision through a lens having a certain spherical power (see col. 39, line 61-col. 40, line 33 – “The system then enables the patient make at least one input to select areas in the figure which appear distorted, missing, or otherwise different than the rest. The system can use this at least one input to further test the areas of vision loss by either magnifying those certain spots of vision loss, or altering their shapes or intensities to determine if the patient can notice vision improvement. The patient continues to look to or at the center of the figure while the system adjusts at least one of the shape, intensity, color, or other suitable characteristic of each identified area of vision loss. The system enables the patient to make at least one input per previously-identified area of vision loss to connote one or more of the following: (i) the adjustment helped to make the area more clear/less distorted, (ii) the adjustment did not help to make the area more clear/less distorted, (iii) the adjustment made the area clear and not distorted, and (iv) the area is still missing, blurry, or distorted despite the adjustment. The system may then iteratively adjust at least one of the shape, intensity, color, or other suitable characteristic of each identified area of vision loss and again enable the patient to make one or more of the four above-identified inputs. This iterative process may continue until each identified area has been adjusted to appear clear and not distorted to the uncorrected eye of the patient, wherein the adjustment to size, intensity, or other characteristic of each area corresponds to a magnification of a particular location of a spectacle lens. In one example embodiment, the adjustment correlates to the base curve of the lens at that particular location. As an example, if the patient was found to have no distance prescription, but the system identified two areas of vision loss that needed increased magnification with 2 levels of increase (diopters), an example base curve modification would be −4 diopters on the back curve of the lens, and +4 diopters on the front, but +6 curve on the areas that need 2 levels of magnification. This is because a lens has two curved surfaces affecting the vision of the wearer: the front surface and the back surface. The corrective power of a lens is determined by adding the front curve to the back curve. This is expressed by the equation: F1+F2=FTotal. Applicants have surprisingly found that adjusting a figure to correct for vision loss in particular areas correlates to base curve measurements for the corresponding locations of a spectacle lens. Possible applications of the above-described system include aiding those patients with macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, or other retinal diseases which cause loss of some or all vision in certain locations”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Horn to include said visual stimulus includes displaying a plurality of visual stimulus each of which having characteristics corresponding to vision through a lens having a certain spherical power, as disclosed in Lee et al., so as to aid patients with macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, or other retinal diseases which cause loss of some or all vision in certain locations (see Lee et al.: col. 40, lines 29-33).
Regarding claim 13, Lee et al. teaches said characteristics include a blurring level corresponding to vision via a predetermined spherical power (see col. 39, line 61-col. 40, line 13 – “The system then enables the patient make at least one input to select areas in the figure which appear distorted, missing, or otherwise different than the rest. The system can use this at least one input to further test the areas of vision loss by either magnifying those certain spots of vision loss, or altering their shapes or intensities to determine if the patient can notice vision improvement. The patient continues to look to or at the center of the figure while the system adjusts at least one of the shape, intensity, color, or other suitable characteristic of each identified area of vision loss. The system enables the patient to make at least one input per previously-identified area of vision loss to connote one or more of the following: (i) the adjustment helped to make the area more clear/less distorted, (ii) the adjustment did not help to make the area more clear/less distorted, (iii) the adjustment made the area clear and not distorted, and (iv) the area is still missing, blurry, or distorted despite the adjustment. The system may then iteratively adjust at least one of the shape, intensity, color, or other suitable characteristic of each identified area of vision loss and again enable the patient to make one or more of the four above-identified inputs. This iterative process may continue until each identified area has been adjusted to appear clear and not distorted to the uncorrected eye of the patient, wherein the adjustment to size, intensity, or other characteristic of each area corresponds to a magnification of a particular location of a spectacle lens”).
Regarding claim 14, Lee et al. teaches said characteristics include optical resolution level corresponding to vision via a predetermined spherical power (see col. 39, line 61-col. 40, line 13 – “The system then enables the patient make at least one input to select areas in the figure which appear distorted, missing, or otherwise different than the rest. The system can use this at least one input to further test the areas of vision loss by either magnifying those certain spots of vision loss, or altering their shapes or intensities to determine if the patient can notice vision improvement. The patient continues to look to or at the center of the figure while the system adjusts at least one of the shape, intensity, color, or other suitable characteristic of each identified area of vision loss. The system enables the patient to make at least one input per previously-identified area of vision loss to connote one or more of the following: (i) the adjustment helped to make the area more clear/less distorted, (ii) the adjustment did not help to make the area more clear/less distorted, (iii) the adjustment made the area clear and not distorted, and (iv) the area is still missing, blurry, or distorted despite the adjustment. The system may then iteratively adjust at least one of the shape, intensity, color, or other suitable characteristic of each identified area of vision loss and again enable the patient to make one or more of the four above-identified inputs. This iterative process may continue until each identified area has been adjusted to appear clear and not distorted to the uncorrected eye of the patient, wherein the adjustment to size, intensity, or other characteristic of each area corresponds to a magnification of a particular location of a spectacle lens”).
Regarding claim 15, it is noted Horn does not specifically teach collecting dataset including axis of each visual stimulus, value of a spherical power, and said indication, said dataset is manipulated by a selected mathematical formula to obtain a required optical correction. However, Lee et al. teaches collecting dataset including axis of each visual stimulus (see Figures 9A and 12B and col. 22, lines 33-54), value of a spherical power, and said indication (see Figure 2A and col. 13, lines 12-51). The combination of Horn in view of Lee et al. teaches said dataset is manipulated by a selected mathematical formula to obtain a required optical correction (see Horn: col. 5, line 62-col. 6, line 21 and col. 17, lines 36-40 and Lee et al.: col. 31, lines 22-28). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Horn to include collecting dataset including axis of each visual stimulus, value of a spherical power, and said indication, as disclosed in Lee et al., so as to determine an astigmatism prescription and a power of corrective lenses prescription for the patient (see Lee et al.: Abstract).
Regarding claim 16, Horn discloses a method for carrying out an eye examination on an examinee, the method comprising:
providing a display (5) configured for displaying a visual stimulus (8) (see Figure 1 and col. 7, lines 13-17 – “The preferred test program generally calls upon the test subject 9 to identify the appearance of various colored targets, or marks 8, that are momentarily displayed, or flashed, at various locations on the test field 14 on the computer monitor display 5”);
forming a visual path between said display and at least one eye of the examinee (see Figure 1 and col. 6, lines 39-43 – “The test taker 9 is placed a predetermined initial distance D using for example a measuring tool or distance prop, as discussed further below, such initial distance varying depending on the particular monitor 5 size in use”);
displaying on said display at least one visual stimulus including a first visual element, a second visual element, and background (see col. 8, lines 26-29 – “All three color axis can be also be used effectively in this manner (red-blue/purple background; blue-yellow/green background; red-yellow/orange background)”), wherein contrast between said first visual element and said background is the same as contrast between said background and second visual element (see col. 7, lines 33-37 – “The degree of contrast used to develop the test range included 17 contrast increments as follows: 3%, 5%, 7%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 100%, 120%, 140%, and 200%”);
receiving an indication from the examinee regarding detection of at least one of said first and second elements (see col. 7, lines 13-17 – “The preferred test program generally calls upon the test subject 9 to identify the appearance of various colored targets, or marks 8, that are momentarily displayed, or flashed, at various locations on the test field 14 on the computer monitor display 5” and col. 15, lines 29-35 – “The test subject 9 must try to discern the number of targets 8 presented in each flash. After each event the test subject 9 must identify the number of perceived targets. The perceived number of targets for each event may be recorded between events through the use of a computer mouse 4, whereby the test subject clicks a button on the mouse 4 in rapid succession; one click for each target 8 perceived (step 45)”);
assessing vision of said at least one eye in accordance with said indication and said contrast (see col. 17, lines 35-50 – “Dynamic data exchange may be used to score the test results, permit analysis of various test components, and to ultimately print out the results if desired. A data base may be used to allow scoring of the test results based on statistical comparison with large populations. The test results may be presented in a variety of formats. For example, the test results may be presented by comparing the percent risk of eye disease of the test subject to the percent risk of eye disease for the test taker's age group. Certain test abnormalities, such as significant deficit on the nasal test, are more likely to be glaucoma related. Test subjects whose risk of eye disease, or more specifically glaucoma, is determined to be approximately average or above average can be directed to or presented with appropriate instructions and guidelines”).
It is noted Horn does not specifically teach rotating said first and second elements with respect to said background modifying thereby orientation of said first and second visual elements with respect to the background. However, Lee et al. teaches rotating said first and second elements with respect to said background modifying thereby orientation of said first and second visual elements with respect to the background (see Figure 9A and col. 3, lines 23-28 – “In another further embodiment, the first diagram is a rotatable line. In a still further embodiment, the rotatable line is made up of at least two alternating colors. In yet a further embodiment, the at least two alternating colors are selected from the group consisting of the red family and the green family, respectively”; see also col. 22, lines 23-54). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Horn to include rotating said first and second elements with respect to said background modifying thereby orientation of said first and second visual elements with respect to the background, as disclosed in Lee et al., so as to determine whether or not a patient has astigmatism and determine the axis prescription of a patient to within 1° of accuracy (see Lee et al.: col. 22, lines 33-45).
Regarding claim 17, Horn teaches said orientation has an axis, and wherein said step of displaying visual stimulus includes displaying said first and second visual elements at various orientations and said step of assessing vision further includes assessing the axis of said orientation when said first or second visual elements are detected (see col. 7, lines 21-24 – “Throughout the test program these marks 8 appear, either alone or in combination with others, at various locations on the test field 14 displayed on the computer monitor 5”). Lee et al. also teaches said orientation has an axis, and wherein said step of displaying visual stimulus includes displaying said first and second visual elements at various orientations and said step of assessing vision further includes assessing the axis of said orientation when said first or second visual elements are detected (see col. 22, lines 23-54).
Regarding claim 18, Horn teaches modifying level of said contrast (see col. 7, lines 33-37 – “The degree of contrast used to develop the test range included 17 contrast increments as follows: 3%, 5%, 7%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, 80%, 100%, 120%, 140%, and 200%” and lines 55-61 – “Specifically, the test program tests the subject with nonvarying 90 mm.sup.2 targets 8 of varying color contrast. For most test increments this means varying rgb values relative to the background so that the luminance is constant but the hue--the rgb components--is varied, in contrast to more conventional visual field tests which typically present targets of varying size”) and wherein said step of assessing vision further includes assessing level of said contrast when said first or second visual elements are detected (see col. 7, lines 63-65 – “It is rather the color contrast relative to the background 14 that determines threshold and ability to distinguish the symbol 8 from the background 14”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yano (US 2019/0167092 A1) describes methods for examining color vision characteristics, wherein intensities of red, green, and blue lights are changed three-dimensionally.
Nordstrom (US 11,883,097 B2) describes methods for testing for color vision loss using first and second colors at contrast levels that can be the same or different.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVIN B HENSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5340. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 AM ET - 5 PM ET.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/DEVIN B HENSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791