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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on July 13, 2023; February 17, 2025 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 1), Examiner suggests -- for measuring [[the]] a visual field ---
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) triggering an interaction device; an interaction device configured to be triggered…in claims 1, 27.
b) a processing unit…in claims 22, 27
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 6, 10-11, 13-15, 19, 21-23, 25-28, 30-32 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.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “wherein a spatial position of the head of the person with respect to the area display remains unchanged” which is unclear whether this requires the person as part of the device performing the method (MPEP 2173.05(p).II) as well as infringement appears to rely on the subjective actions of the user (MPEP 2173.05(b).II). The metes and bounds are unclear since infringement appears to depend upon whether the person (user) maintains their head position as opposed to the method/steps performed by the device.
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches a person viewing a detectable spot, such limitations are necessarily met.
As to claims 1, 27, the claim recites “becomes invisible to the person… or becomes visible again” lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, the claim has not established an initial visible condition, thus it is unclear what is “visible again”. Additionally, it is unclear how the person would trigger for an invisible target. If the person can’t see an object that wasn’t presented, how would the person know to when/what to trigger for? Is there some indicator that a target was presented so as to inform the person they missed a target and could then trigger? Was the target initially visible and then disappeared to elicit a trigger from the person?
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim as referring to any visible state.
Claims 2-3, 6, 10-11, 13-15, 19, 21-26, 28, 30-32 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1 or 27.
As to claim 1 (line 10), the claim recites “during its movement” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “its”? Examiner will understand the language is directed to the spot.
As to claim 1 (line 13), the claim recites “from which it can be derived” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “it”?
As to claim 2, the claim recites “said current positions” which lacks antecedent basis. Specifically, claim 1 only establishes “a current position”.
As to claims 3, 10, 11, 13-14, 22, the claims recite “in particular” which appears to exemplary/preferential language (MPEP 2173.05(d)). The metes and bounds are unclear since it is unknown whether the additional features are necessarily required.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “a speed S/f in cm/s…wherein S is the distance traveled…in cm…and f is a number” which is unclear since the units of the speed do not appear to exist in the definition. Specifically, f doesn’t have any units thus it is unclear how the speed is in cm/s. Additionally, as per the claim, there does not appear to any limitation to the speed. The speed is being defined as essentially S/(2 to 7), where S appears to be entirely arbitrary (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will consider the limitation necessarily met for any possible test spot movement speed.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “f is a number in the range from 2 to 7, in particular…from 3 to 6…from 4 to 5…4.7” or “a distance (A)…from 10cm to 400cm…from 20cm to 200cm…from 30cm to 100cm…from 30cm to 50cm…from 35cm to 45cm…40cm” or “500 to 50000 different locations…1000 to 25000…1500 to 10000…2500 locations” or “length of at least 17.625cm to 705cm…35.25 to 352.5cm… 52.875cm to 176.25cm…70.5cm” which is a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c).
Examiner will understand all ranges to be the corresponding broadest range.
Claim 14 is rejected as dependent upon claim 3.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “during the measurement run within a period of 1 minute…wherein the test spot travels along the entire path within a period of time which is less than or equal to 1 minute” which is unclear what the measurement time is and how it is possible to test 500 to 50,000 locations within a time of 0 minutes.
For purposes of compact prosecution, due to the optional nature of such limitations, Examiner will essentially ignore the limitations for art purposes.
As to claim 10, the claim recites “one section crossing nerve fibers and running in particular orthogonally to the nerve fibers” which is a relative feature (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the location(s) and orientation of the nerve fibers are dependent upon the human and their eye orientation and thus what direction the travel takes relative to such variable feature renders the claim indefinite.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand claim 10 such that so long as the prior art teaches moving the spot, such limitations are necessarily met.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “the detected area” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 13, the claim recites “the device detects during the measurement run whether a viewing direction of the person deviates from the central object and stops movement of the test spot” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure. Specifically, neither the claim nor specification contain any structure for measuring the gaze to determine the deviation from the central object (MPEP 2173.05(g)).
As to claim 15 (line 8, 17), the claim recites “during its movement” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “its”? Examiner will understand the language is directed to the spot.
As to claim 15 (line 12, 20), the claim recites “from which it can be derived” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “it”?
As to claim 19 (line 7), the claim recites “during its movement” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “its”? Examiner will understand the language is directed to the spot.
As to claim 19 (line 11), the claim recites “from which it can be derived” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “it”?
As to claim 27 (line 5), the claim recites “move it along” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “it”? Examiner will understand the language is directed to the spot.
As to claim 27 (line 7), the claim recites “during its movement” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “its”? Examiner will understand the language is directed to the spot.
As to claim 27 (line 10), the claim recites “from which information it is derivable” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “it’?
As to claim 1, the claim limitations “means of a device” (claim 1); “means of an eye” (claim 1); has been evaluated under the three-prong test set forth in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, but the result is inconclusive. Thus, it is unclear whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the limitations use the word “means” and include ambiguous structure, but is unclear if USC 112(f) is intended to be invoked.
The boundaries of these claim limitations are ambiguous; therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
In response to this rejection, applicant must clarify whether this limitation should be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Mere assertion regarding applicant’s intent to invoke or not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph is insufficient. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim to clearly invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by reciting “means” or a generic placeholder for means, or by reciting “step.” The “means,” generic placeholder, or “step” must be modified by functional language, and must not be modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function;
(b) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, should apply because the claim limitation recites a function to be performed and does not recite sufficient structure, material, or acts to perform that function;
(c) Amend the claim to clearly avoid invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, by deleting the function or by reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to perform the recited function; or
(d) Present a sufficient showing that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, does not apply because the limitation does not recite a function or does recite a function along with sufficient structure, material or acts to perform that function.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, 14-15, 19, 21-23, 25-28, 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2005/0068498).
As to claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method for measuring the visual field (Suzuki Figs. 3-7; para. [0001]) of a person by means of a device (Suzuki Fig. 1; Fig. 2), comprising the steps of
displaying a visually detectable spot on an area display of the device (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0050], [0059]) viewed by the person by means of an eye of the person (Suzuki Fig. 1 - E; para. [0050]), wherein a spatial position of the head of the person with respect to the area display remains unchanged (Suzuki Fig. 1 - E, 20; para. [0050]);
and moving the test spot on the area display by means of the device along a path during a measurement run (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0059]) and triggering an interaction device of the device (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 35; para. [0051]) by the person when the display spot becomes invisible to the person or becomes visible again during its movement along the path at a current position (Suzuki para. [0059]-[0060] - patient presses button when target becomes visible again after moving from location to location), wherein the device is caused by triggering of the interaction device to store the respective current position as well as associated information from which it can be derived whether the test spot has become invisible to the person or has become visible again (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 32, 33, 31, 34; para. [0051]; Fig. 4 - 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0061]).
As to claim 2, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches displaying information and/or an area of the person’s field of view on the area display and/or on a further area display (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 31; Figs. 4-7), said current positions forming edge points of the area (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 101a, 101b).
As to claims 3 (as understood), Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the test spot has a speed S/f in cm/s (Suzuki para. [0059] - teaching a speed of 5o/s whereby the angle (5o) is necessarily convertible to linear distance (cm) on the LCD (20)).
As to claim 6, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the path comprises a plurality of mutually parallel first sections and/or the path comprises a plurality of mutually parallel second sections (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0063] - paths being concentric (mutually parallel) circles).
As to claim 10, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the path has at least one section running along the vertical or inclined to the vertical; and/or the path has at least one section running in an arcuate shape; and/or the path has at least one section crossing nerve fibers and running orthogonally to the nerve fibers (Suzuki Figs. 3-7).
As to claim 11, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Suzuki further teaches for visualization of the area the current positions at which the test spot has become invisible are connected with a line which is displayed as a border line of the area on the further area display (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070])
and/or in that the current positions at which the test spot has become visible are connected with a line which is displayed as a border line of the area on the further area display, wherein in particular the area surrounded by the border lines is displayed on the further area display optically differentiable from the background of the further area display (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]);
and/or wherein the detected area is checked by guiding the test spot on the area display under control of an examiner and under observation by the person repeatedly out of the detected area into a surrounding area in which the test spot is visible to the person (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]).
As to claim 14, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Suzuki further teaches the speed of the test spot is temporarily slowed down as required by the examiner (Suzuki Fig. 6 - 100, P, Y1, Y2; para. [0064], [0067]-[0069]), by interaction with a user interface of the device (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 37; para. [0051]), to specify a current position at which the test spot has become invisible or has become visible again (Suzuki Fig. 6 - 100, P; para. [0064]).
As to claim 15, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the method further comprises the step of: performing a further measurement run for each section of the path of the measurement run extending between two adjacent stored current positions (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), in which in each case the test spot on the area display is moved by means of the device along a further path within an area on the area display which contains the respective section as a center (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), and in each case triggering of the interaction device of the device by the person (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), when the displayed test spot becomes invisible to the person during its movement along the further path within the area at a current position or becomes visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), wherein the device is caused by the triggering of the interaction device to store the respective current position of the test spot in the area as well as associated information from which it can be derived whether the test spot at the current position has become invisible to the person or visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]).
As to claim 19, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches performing at least one further measurement run for an area selected by the examiner (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), wherein the test spot on the area display is moved along a further path within an area on the area display by means of the device (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), and in each case triggering of the interaction device of the device by the person (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), when the displayed test spot, during its movement along the further path within the area, becomes invisible to the person at a current position or becomes visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), wherein the device is caused by the triggering of the interaction device to store the respective current position of the test spot in the area as well as associated information from which it can be derived whether the test spot at the current position has become invisible to the person or visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]),and/or
performing at least one further measurement run, wherein the test spot on the area display is moved along a further path under the control of the examiner by means of the device (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), and in each case triggering of the interaction device of the device by the person when the displayed test spot becomes invisible to the person during its movement along the further path within the area at a current position or becomes visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), wherein the device is caused by the triggering of the interaction device to store the respective current position of the test spot in the area as well as associated information from which it can be derived whether the test spot has become invisible to the person at the current position or has become visible again(Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]).
As to claim 21, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Suzuki further teaches a content of the area display is transmitted to the further area display via a data transmission link and/or a content of the further display area is transmitted to the area (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20; Fig. 2 - 31, 30, 20; para. [0058]-[0060]).
As to claim 22, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches a processing unit for displaying and moving the visually detectable test spot on the area display (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30; Fig. 4 - 100; para. [0058]-[0059]).
As to claim 23, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Suzuki further teaches the processing unit is one of
a local processing unit at the location of the person, and wherein the respective current position as well as the associated information are stored on the local processing unit and are transmitted to a further processing unit via a data transmission link and are evaluated on the further processing unit to generate a result data set (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 34; para. [0051], [0058]-[0060]);
a local processing unit at the location of the person, and wherein the respective current position as well as the associated information are stored on the local processing unit and are evaluated on the local processing unit to generate a result data set, wherein the result data set is optionally transmitted to a further processing unit via a data transmission link (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 34; para. [0051], [0058]-[0060]).
As to claim 25, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Suzuki further teaches a local processing unit at the location of the person, which is connected to the area display, wherein the processing unit causes the display and movement of the visually detectable test spot on the area display via a data transmission link to the local processing unit, wherein the respective current position as well as the associated information are stored on the processing unit and evaluated to generate a result data set (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 20, 30; Figs. 4-7; para. [0058]-[0062]).
As to claim 26, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Suzuki further teaches a computer program comprising instructions that cause the processing unit to perform the method (Suzuki Figs. 1-7).
As to claim 27, Suzuki teaches a device for measuring the visual field of a person comprising an area display configured to be viewed by a person (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20),
a processing unit configured to display a test spot on the area display to the person and to move it along a predefinable path on the display area (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0059]; Fig. 6 - 101a, P; para. [0067]);
an interaction device configured to be triggered by the person (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 35; para. [0051]) when the displayed test spot becomes invisible to the person during its movement along the path at a current position or becomes visible again (Suzuki para. [0059]-[0060] - patient presses button when target becomes visible again after moving from location to location);
wherein the processing unit is configured to store the respective current position and associated information when the interaction device is triggered (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 32, 33, 31, 34; para. [0051]; Fig. 4 - 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0061]), from which information it is derivable whether the test spot has become invisible to the person at the current position or has become visible again (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 32, 33, 31, 34; para. [0051]; Fig. 4 - 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0061]).
As to claim 28, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27, and Suzuki further teaches a further area display configured to be viewed by an examiner (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 31; para. [0055]), wherein the processing unit is further configured to display an area of the person’s field of view on the further display (Suzuki Figs. 3-7), said current positions forming edge points of the area (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 101a, 101b).
As to claim 30, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27, and Suzuki further teaches a fixation unit configured to fix a head position of the person with respect to the area display (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0055]).
As to claim 31, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27, and Suzuki further teaches a further processing unit (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 31, 30), and wherein the processing unit is configured to transmit the current positions as well as the associated information to the further processing unit via a data transmission link (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 31), wherein the further processing unit is configured to evaluate the current positions as well as the associated information to generate a result data set (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0063]).
As to claim 32, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27, and Suzuki further teaches a further processing unit (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30), and wherein the processing unit is configured to evaluate the current positions and the associated information to generate a result data set and to transmit the result data set to the further processing unit via a data transmission link (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 31; para. [0063]); and/or
a local processing unit at the location of the person (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30), which is connected to the area display (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 31), wherein the processing unit causes the display and movement of the visually detectable test spot on the area display via a data transmission link to the local processing unit (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 31; Figs. 4-7), wherein the respective current position as well as the associated information are stored on the processing unit and evaluated to generate a result data set (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0063]).
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Smith et al. (US 2019/0298166 - Smith), Mantysalo et al. (US 2016/0249798 - Mantysalo), and Sabel et al. (US 2007/0216865 - Sabel)
As to claim 13, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches during the measurement run a central object is displayed on the area display in the form of a cross (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0050]), and which is viewed by the person to fix a viewing direction of the person (Suzuki para. [0050], [0056]; claim 1).
Suzuki doesn’t specify the central object (fixation point) is weaker in light, the device detects when the person’s viewing direction deviates from the central object and stops the movement of the test spot, the test spot has a diameter which becomes smaller with decreasing distance from the central object.
In the same field of endeavor Smith teaches visual field testing devices having a fixation point (Smith Fig. 5 - 154; para. [0060]) wherein when the device detects a viewing direction of the person deviates from the central object and stops movement of the test spot (Smith para. [0056]).
In the same field of endeavor Mantysalo teaches providing weaker central object (fixation point) light than test spot (Mantysalo para. [0026]).
In the same field of endeavor Sabel teaches providing visual field testing device with a central spot (Sabel Fig. 2 - 210) and a test spot diameter becomes smaller with decreasing distance from the central object (Sabel para. [0012]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to stop the movement since, as taught by Smith, such action allows for notifying the patient fixation has been lost (Smith para. [0056]), to provide a weaker fixation point since, as taught by Mantysalo, such dim fixation points help to attract the viewing of the patient by being more interesting (Mantysalo para. [0026]) and to decrease the spot diameter with decreasing distance from the central object since, as taught by Sabel, such sizing allows for targeting peripheral versus central visual field regions (Sabel para. [0012]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Mantysalo et al. (US 10,702,141); Suzuki (US 7,309,129); Zur et al. (US 6,406,437); Lynn et al. (US 3,883,235); Haines et al. (US 3,737,217); Aibara (US 2023/0190091); Johnson et al. (Automated kinetic perimetry: an efficient method of evaluating peripheral visual field loss)1; Dolderer et al. (Scotoma mapping by semi-automated kinetic perimetry: the effects of stimulus properties and the speed of subjects' responses)2; Muller et al. (Rapid Campimetry-A Novel Screening Method for Glaucoma Diagnosis)3; Zur et al. (A Novel High-Resolution Kinetic Method for Visual Field Mapping of Scotoma in Age-Related Macular Degeneration)4 are cited as additional examples of visual field testing methods and devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 October 10, 2025
1 Johnson CA, Keltner JL, Lewis RA. Automated kinetic perimetry: an efficient method of evaluating peripheral visual field loss. Appl Opt. 1987 Apr 15;26(8):1409-14. doi: 10.1364/AO.26.001409. PMID: 20454335.
2 Dolderer J, Vonthein R, Johnson CA, Schiefer U, Hart W. Scotoma mapping by semi-automated kinetic perimetry: the effects of stimulus properties and the speed of subjects' responses. Acta Ophthalmol Scand. 2006 Jun;84(3):338-44. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0420.2005.00624.x. PMID: 16704695.
3 Müller F, Al-Nosairy KO, Kramer FH, Meltendorf C, Djouoma N, Thieme H, Hoffmann MB, Hoffmann F. Rapid Campimetry-A Novel Screening Method for Glaucoma Diagnosis. J Clin Med. 2022 Apr 12;11(8):2156. doi: 10.3390/jcm11082156. PMID: 35456248; PMCID: PMC9031552.
4 Zur D, Simon GJB, Loewenstein A, Alster Y, Moisseiev J, Ullman S. A Novel High-Resolution Kinetic Method for Visual Field Mapping of Scotoma in Age-Related Macular Degeneration. Ophthalmic Surgery, Lasers and Imaging Retina. 2004;35(5):395-405. doi:10.3928/1542-8877-20040901-08