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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 08/10/2023. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Umran (US 20040161730 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Urman discloses in at least figures 2A- 3, an eyesight training device (FOV inhibiting apparatus 28 fig. 2A), comprising:
a binocular visual-field separation device (the user's left eye 60 cannot view the right hand side 23 of the display 20, and the user's right eye 62 cannot view the left hand side 21 of display 20 paragraph [0021]), comprising a double-separation plate assembly (vanes 52, 54 fig. 2A) and an adjustable unit (hinge 56 fig. 2A),
wherein the double-separation plate assembly (vanes 52, 54 fig. 2A) comprises two separation plates (right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 2A) which are movably connected to each other (the vanes 52, 54 are attached to the brow element 40 via, for example, a hinge 56 such that they may be angularly adjusted with respect to the brow element paragraph [0021]) and form an included angle (included angle as shown below in fig. 3), and the adjustable unit (hinge 56 fig. 2A) is used for adjusting (the hinge 56 is used to adjust the angles 75 and 85 for the left vane 52 and right vane 54 resulting in a change in the included angle as shown below in fig. 3) the included angle (included angle as shown below in fig. 3) between the two separation plates (right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 2A); and
a display screen (display 20 fig. 3),
wherein the double-separation plate assembly (vanes 52, 54 fig. 2A) separates the display screen (display 20 fig. 3) into a left visual field (left hand side 21 fig. 3) and a right visual field (right hand side 23 fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
744
700
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Urman discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, wherein the double-separation plate assembly (vanes 52, 54 fig. 2A) comprises a training side (training side as shown below in fig. 3) and a near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3), the training side (training side as shown below in fig. 3) is arranged on a side of the double-separation plate assembly (vanes 52, 54 fig. 2A) where the two separation plates (right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 2A) are movably connected to each other (the right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 2A are connected on the training side by hinge 56 as shown in fig. 3), the near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3) is a side which is opposite (the near screen is on the opposite side of vanes 52 and 54 of the training side as shown below in fig. 3) to the training side (training side as shown below in fig. 3), and the near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3) is close to (the near screen side is close to the display 20 as shown below in fig. 3) the display screen (display 20 fig. 3) to separate (the near screen side separates the left hand side 21 and right hand side 23 of the display 20 as shown below in fig. 3) the left visual field (left hand side 21 fig. 3) and the right visual field (right hand side 23 fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
744
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umran (US 20040161730 A1) as applied to claim 2 above and in view of Sun (CN 212018445 U).
Regarding claim 3, Urman discloses all the limitations of claim 2 and further discloses, wherein the adjustable unit (hinge 56 fig. 2A) is arranged between (the hinge 56 is between the right vane 54 and left vane 52 at near screen side as shown below in fig. 3) the two separation plates (right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 3) at the near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
744
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Urman does not disclose, an adjustable knob and an adjustable telescopic bracket, wherein the adjustable telescopic bracket is telescopically connected with the two separation plates, and the included angle between the two separation plates is telescopically adjusted by the adjustable knob.
However Sun discloses in at least figures 1-2, an adjustable knob (adjusting knob 23 fig. 2) and an adjustable telescopic bracket (telescoping rod 21 fig. 1), wherein the adjustable telescopic bracket (telescoping rod 21 fig. 1) is telescopically connected (the telescoping rod 21 is connected to the pedestal 1 and mounting plate 2 fig. 2) with the two separation plates (pedestal 1 and mounting plate 2 fig. 2), and the included angle (included angle as shown below in fig. 1) between the two separation plates (pedestal 1 and mounting plate 2 fig. 2) is telescopically adjusted (the telescopic rod 21 is provided with an adjusting knob 23 for adjusting the length of the telescopic rod 21 pg. 9 para. 1 of translation which will adjust the included angle as shown below in fig. 1) by the adjustable knob (adjusting knob 23 fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
502
778
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to us the adjust knob and telescoping rod of Sun in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The adjustment knob is used to achieve the angle needed between the pedestal 1 and mounting plate 2 by changing the height of the telescopic rod (pg. 8 para. 3 of translation).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umran (US 20040161730 A1) in view of Sun (CN 212018445 U) as applied to claim 3 above and in further view of Fujikado et al. (US 11363948 B2) and Kobayashi et al. (US 20200221943 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Urman and Sun discloses all the limitations of claim 3 and Urman further discloses, wherein the training side (training side as shown below in fig. 3) further comprises any one of a forehead support (brow element 40 fig. 3).
Urman does not disclose, a chin support, and a distance between the training side and the display screen is > 45 cm.
However Fujikado discloses in at least figure 1, a chin support (the face supporting unit supports the chin col. 6 lines 59-65).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to us the chin support as taught by Fujikado in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The face supporting unit supports one or both of a forehead and a chin of the subject to stabilize the positions of the subject's eyes on the table 11 (col. 6 lines 62-63).
Additionally Kobayashi discloses in at least figure 4B, a distance between the training side (the optometric window 53a is closer to the display than the eye E fig. 4B) and the display screen (display 11 fig. 4B) is > 45 cm (the optical distance from the display 11 to the subject eye E can be 60 cm paragraph [0084]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to us the distance between the eye and the display as taught by Kobayashi in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The optical distance from the display 11 to the subject eye E is not limited to 40 cm at the time of the near examination, and may be different optical distances paragraph [0084]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umran (US 20040161730 A1) in view of Sun (CN 212018445 U), Fujikado et al. (US 11363948 B2) and Kobayashi et al. (US 20200221943 A1) as applied to claim 4 above and in further view of Knowles et al. (US 20200333258 A1).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Urman, Sun, Fujikado and Kobayashi discloses all the limitations of claim 4 and further discloses, wherein a color of the double-separation plate (vanes 52, 54 fig. 2a) assembly is black (the vanes are black in color paragraph [0047]).
Urman does not explicitly disclose, matte carbon black.
However Knowles discloses in at least figure 5, matte carbon black (the material used for absorbing light can be a carbon layer and include matte black paint paragraph [0043]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the matte carbon black as taught by Knowles in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The coating on the plate is used for absorbing light to control where light is reflected paragraph [0043]).
Claims 6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umran (US 20040161730 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and in view of Krail et al. (US 20210169322 A1), Oz et al. (US 20200329961 A1) and Park (US 20190290529 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Urman discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, using the eyesight training device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above);
wherein Step 1, setting a distance (the included angle changes as a result of the distance between the near screen sides of the right vane 54 and left vane 52 and the adjustments of angles 75 and 85 as shown below in fig. 3) between the two separation plates (right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 3) at a near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3) according to a primary eye position of a trainee (the left vane 52 properly adjusted to an angle 75 such that information presented on the right hand side 23 of the display is blocked from view by the user's left eye 60 and the right vane 54 properly adjusted to an angle 85 such that information presented on the left hand side 21 of the display 20 is blocked from view by the user's right eye 62 paragraph [0022]).
Urman does not disclose, a training method implemented which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee,
Step 2, providing at least one movable central training visual target on each of left and right sides of the separated display screen, wherein at least one central training visual target moves to temporal sides of left or right eye of the trainee from the primary eye position of the trainee respectively, and the left or right eye of the trainee tracks training central visual targets respectively;
Step 3, returning the central training visual targets back to the primary eye position along their original paths when divergent fusional ability of a brain visual center of the trainee reaches its limit and a binocular single vision merged image of the central training visual targets is split into two images;
Step 4, repeating above steps 1 to 3 for at least two times;
wherein a separation distance between left and right central training visual targets at a beginning of training is 2-30 mm larger than that at the primary eye position.
However Krail discloses in at least figure 22, a training method implemented which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee (the system for determining binocular alignment 310 fig. 22),
Step 2, providing at least one movable central training visual target (the computer can move projected visible images 326-1 and 326-2 paragraph [0165]) on each of left and right sides of the separated display screen (displays 322-1 and 322-2 fig. 22),
and the left or right eye of the trainee (first eye 1-1 and second eye 1-2 fig. 22) tracks training central visual targets respectively (the patient indicates when the two images 326-1 and 326-2 are fused, or when the fusion of the two images is broken paragraph [0165]),
when divergent fusional ability of a brain visual center of the trainee reaches its limit (when the fusion of the two images is broken paragraph [0165]) and a binocular single vision (binocular alignment paragraph [0165]) merged image of the central training visual targets (fused image of 326-1 and 326-2 paragraph [0165]) is split into two images (images 326-1 and 326-2 paragraph [0165]).
Krail further teaches (paragraph [0171]): “The computer 350 can be configured to carry out steps of this method 100. As such, in some embodiments, the computer 350 can be configured to determine a Fixation Disparity of a patient as an amount of angular misalignment between a central target and a peripheral fusion lock of moving targets around an image with a blank center, as part of the determining of the binocular alignment.”
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the training method of tracking moving targets unit they are fused or fusion is broken as taught by Krail into the eyesight training device of Urman. One would have been motivated to perform this tracking step because Krail teaches that fixation disparity of a patient can be determined by the angular misalignment between the central targets and the peripheral fusion lock of moving targets. (Krail paragraph [0171]).
Additionally Oz discloses in at least figure 7, wherein at least one central training visual target (moving image fig. 7) moves to temporal sides (the moving image 7 moves to the sides of the right near eye display 34 and left near eye display 35 fig. 7, as shown by the movement from a1 and a2 to c1 and c2 in current application fig. 2) of left or right eye of the trainee (amblyopic eye and nonamblyopic eye 15 fig. 7) from the primary eye position of the trainee respectively (the moving image 7 from the center of the right near eye display 34 and left near eye display 35 fig. 7, as shown by the movement from a1 and a2 to c1 and c2 in current application fig. 2),
Step 3, returning the central training visual targets (moving image fig. 7) back to the primary eye position (center of the right near eye display 34 and left near eye display 35 fig. 7) along their original paths (the moving image 7 moves from side to side of the right near eye display 34 and left near eye display 35 fig. 7).
Step 4, repeating above steps 1 to 3 (steps 1 to 3 are taught by the combination of Urman, Krail and Oz above) for at least two times (the process might be repeated a few times in order to average and get more accurate results paragraph [0236]).
Oz further teaches (paragraph [0216]): “the main requirement for convergence deficiency diagnosis is to provide variable convergent images, beginning with relatively apart images which does not require the eyes to converge and gradually moving in the 2 images until the eye trackers will inform the processor that the eyes stopped converging.”
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the movement paths of the targets as taught by Oz into the eyesight training device of Urman. One would have been motivated to add the movement path because Oz teaches that variable convergent images are required for a convergence deficiency diagnosis. (Oz paragraph [0216]).
Further Park discloses in at least figures 4A and 4B, wherein a separation distance between left and right central training visual targets (images IMG_R and IMG_L fig. 4A) at a beginning of training (In the state in which the image focuses do not coincide with each other in terms of fusion, the eyes of the user recognize two separate images as shown by the left eye image IMG_L and the right eye image IMG_R in FIG. 4A) is 2-30 mm larger (the controller may store a distance in mm) between the images or with respect to a reference point paragraph [0051]) than that at the primary eye position (when the eyes of the user recognize the left eye image IMG_L and the right eye image IMG_R as a combined a single image IMG as shown in FIG. 4B).
Park further teaches (paragraphs [0049]-[0051]): “Thereafter, the controller 190 controls at least one of the left display 131 or the right display 132 such that the left eye image IMG_L and the right image IMG_R gradually get closer to each other as illustrated by the arrows in FIG. 4A (S130)…
The controller 190 stores location information of the left eye image IMG_L provided to the left display 131 and location information of the right eye image IMG_R provided to the right display 132 at which the image focuses coincide with each other in terms of fusion for the measurement mode. For example, the controller may store a distance (e.g., in mm or pixels) between the images or with respect to a reference point.”
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate a larger separation of the targets at a beginning of the targets as taught by Park into the eyesight training device of Urman. One would have been motivated to add a larger separation of the targets at a beginning of the targets because Park teaches that the images are respectively translated inward on the displays to measure fusion with respect to a reference point. (Park paragraphs [0049]-[0051]).
Additionally, the distance between the images corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the distance between the images directly impacts the e.g. the result of the fusional amplitude information. Further, as a result-effective variable, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges of such things involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the instant case, 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 distance between the images for the purpose of e.g. optimizing the fusional amplitude test results.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Urman, Krail, Oz and Park discloses all the limitations of claim 6 and Urman further discloses, wherein the double-separation plate assembly (vanes 52, 54 fig. 2A) comprises a training side (training side as shown below in fig. 3) and a near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3), the training side (training side as shown below in fig. 3) is arranged on a side of the double-separation plate assembly (vanes 52, 54 fig. 2A) where the two separation plates (right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 2A) are movably connected to each other (the right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 2A are connected on the training side by hinge 56 as shown in fig. 3), the near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3) is a side which is opposite (the near screen is on the opposite side of vanes 52 and 54 of the training side as shown below in fig. 3) to the training side (training side as shown below in fig. 3), and the near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3) is close to (the near screen side is close to the display 20 as shown below in fig. 3) the display screen (display 20 fig. 3) to separate (the near screen side separates the left hand side 21 and right hand side 23 of the display 20 as shown below in fig. 3) the left visual field (left hand side 21 fig. 3) and the right visual field (right hand side 23 fig. 3).
PNG
media_image2.png
744
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Urman does not explicitly disclose, which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee.
However Krail discloses in at least figure 22, a training method implemented which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee (the system for determining binocular alignment 310 fig. 22).
Krail further teaches (paragraph [0171]): “The computer 350 can be configured to carry out steps of this method 100. As such, in some embodiments, the computer 350 can be configured to determine a Fixation Disparity of a patient as an amount of angular misalignment between a central target and a peripheral fusion lock of moving targets around an image with a blank center, as part of the determining of the binocular alignment.”
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the training method of tracking moving targets unit they are fused or fusion is broken as taught by Krail into the eyesight training device of Urman. One would have been motivated to perform this tracking step because Krail teaches that fixation disparity of a patient can be determined by the angular misalignment between the central targets and the peripheral fusion lock of moving targets. (Krail paragraph [0171]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umran (US 20040161730 A1) in view of Krail et al. (US 20210169322 A1), Oz et al. (US 20200329961 A1) and Park (US 20190290529 A1) as applied to claim 6 above and in further view of Fukuhara (US 6606577 B1).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Urman, Krail, Oz and Park discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Urman does not disclose, the training method according to claim 6, wherein a length of each of the at least one central training visual target ranges from 5 mm to 60 mm, and an aspect ratio or a breadth length ratio of each of the at least one central training visual target ranges from 1 to 5.
Additionally Fukuhara discloses in at least figure 2, wherein a length of each of the at least one central training visual target (target b fig. 2) is 4.5mm (the length of the target is 4.5mm col. 10 line 40), and an aspect ratio or a breadth length ratio of each of the at least one central training visual target ranges from 1 to 5 (the target is a 4.5mm by 4.5mm square col. 10 line 40, and the aspect ratio of a square is 1).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a target size and aspect ratio as taught by Fukuhara in the in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The size and shape of the target b allows it to be displayed in multiple positions to be detected.
Additionally in the instant case, the prior art teaches a value of 4.5mm which is so close to the claimed range of 5mm that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to choose the length of the target such that it is 5mm since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium. "The proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties."). See MPEP §2144.05.
Claims 8-9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umran (US 20040161730 A1) in view of Krail et al. (US 20210169322 A1), Oz et al. (US 20200329961 A1), Park (US 20190290529 A1) and Fukuhara (US 6606577 B1).as applied to claim 7 above and in further view of Pavlidis (US 4889422 A).
The combination of Urman, Krail, Oz, Park, and Fukuhara discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Urman does not disclose, wherein a moving speed of each of the at least one central training visual target ranges from 0.1 degree to 3 degrees per second.
However Pavlidis discloses in at least figure 13 A, wherein a moving speed of each of the at least one central training visual target (moving target col. 14 line 3) ranges from 0.1 degree to 3 degrees per second (the moving target can move at 3 degrees of arc per second col. 14 lines 4-6).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a target speed as taught by Pavlidis in the in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The speed of the target is used to detect groups who are unable to track a moving target with a pursuit eye movement (col. 14 lines 12-15).
Regarding claim 9, The combination of Urman, Krail, Oz, Park, Fukuhara and Pavlidis discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Urman does not disclose, wherein each of the at least one central training visual target comprises any one of a 3D visual target, a pattern visual target, a character visual target, a pattern and character combined visual target, a pattern and color combined visual target.
However Oz further discloses, wherein each of the at least one central training visual target (moving image fig. 7) comprises any one of a 3D visual target (3D images are used for measurement and treatment paragraph [0038]), a pattern visual target (not required by the claim), a character visual target (not required by the claim), a pattern and character combined visual target (not required by the claim), a pattern and color combined visual target (not required by the claim).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use a 3D target as taught by Oz in the in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. True 3D images best stimulate the brain to combine the images, so the patient perceives the depth of each object in space (paragraph [0038]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umran (US 20040161730 A1) in view of Krail et al. (US 20210169322 A1), Oz et al. (US 20200329961 A1) and Park (US 20190290529 A1) as applied to claim 14 above and in further view of Sun (CN 212018445 U).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Urman, Krail, Oz and Park discloses all the limitations of claim 14 and Urman further discloses, wherein the adjustable unit (hinge 56 fig. 2A) is arranged between (the hinge 56 is between the right vane 54 and left vane 52 at near screen side as shown below in fig. 3) the two separation plates (right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 3) at the near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3).
Urman does not disclose, which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee,
and comprises an adjustable knob and an adjustable telescopic bracket, wherein the adjustable telescopic bracket is telescopically connected with the two separation plates, and the included angle between the two separation plates is telescopically adjusted by the adjustable knob.
PNG
media_image2.png
744
784
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However Krail discloses in at least figure 22, a training method implemented which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee (the system for determining binocular alignment 310 fig. 22).
Krail further teaches (paragraph [0171]): “The computer 350 can be configured to carry out steps of this method 100. As such, in some embodiments, the computer 350 can be configured to determine a Fixation Disparity of a patient as an amount of angular misalignment between a central target and a peripheral fusion lock of moving targets around an image with a blank center, as part of the determining of the binocular alignment.”
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the training method of tracking moving targets unit they are fused or fusion is broken as taught by Krail into the eyesight training device of Urman. One would have been motivated to perform this tracking step because Krail teaches that fixation disparity of a patient can be determined by the angular misalignment between the central targets and the peripheral fusion lock of moving targets. (Krail paragraph [0171]).
Additionally Sun discloses in at least figures 1-2, an adjustable knob (adjusting knob 23 fig. 2) and an adjustable telescopic bracket (telescoping rod 21 fig. 1), wherein the adjustable telescopic bracket (telescoping rod 21 fig. 1) is telescopically connected (the telescoping rod 21 is connected to the pedestal 1 and mounting plate 2 fig. 2) with the two separation plates (pedestal 1 and mounting plate 2 fig. 2), and the included angle (included angle as shown below in fig. 1) between the two separation plates (pedestal 1 and mounting plate 2 fig. 2) is telescopically adjusted (the telescopic rod 21 is provided with an adjusting knob 23 for adjusting the length of the telescopic rod 21 pg. 9 para. 1 of translation which will adjust the included angle as shown below in fig. 1) by the adjustable knob (adjusting knob 23 fig. 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
502
778
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to us the adjust knob and telescoping rod of Sun in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The adjustment knob is used to achieve the angle needed between the pedestal 1 and mounting plate 2 by changing the height of the telescopic rod (pg. 8 para. 3 of translation).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Umran (US 20040161730 A1) in view of Krail et al. (US 20210169322 A1), Oz et al. (US 20200329961 A1), Park (US 20190290529 A1) and Sun (CN 212018445 U) as applied to claim 15 above and in further view of in further view of Fujikado et al. (US 11363948 B2) and Kobayashi et al. (US 20200221943 A1).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Urman, Krail, Oz, Park and Sun discloses all the limitations of claim 15 and Urman further discloses, wherein the training side (training side as shown below in fig. 3) further comprises any one of a forehead support (brow element 40 fig. 3).
Urman does not disclose, which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee,
a chin support, and
a distance between the training side and the display screen is > 45 cm.
However Krail discloses in at least figure 22, a training method implemented which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee (the system for determining binocular alignment 310 fig. 22).
Krail further teaches (paragraph [0171]): “The computer 350 can be configured to carry out steps of this method 100. As such, in some embodiments, the computer 350 can be configured to determine a Fixation Disparity of a patient as an amount of angular misalignment between a central target and a peripheral fusion lock of moving targets around an image with a blank center, as part of the determining of the binocular alignment.”
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the training method of tracking moving targets unit they are fused or fusion is broken as taught by Krail into the eyesight training device of Urman. One would have been motivated to perform this tracking step because Krail teaches that fixation disparity of a patient can be determined by the angular misalignment between the central targets and the peripheral fusion lock of moving targets. (Krail paragraph [0171]).
Additionally Fujikado discloses in at least figure 1, a chin support (the face supporting unit supports the chin col. 6 lines 59-65).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to us the chin support as taught by Fujikado in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The face supporting unit supports one or both of a forehead and a chin of the subject to stabilize the positions of the subject's eyes on the table 11 (col. 6 lines 62-63).
Further Kobayashi discloses in at least figure 4B, a distance between the training side (the optometric window 53a is closer to the display than the eye E fig. 4B) and the display screen (display 11 fig. 4B) is > 45 cm (the optical distance from the display 11 to the subject eye E can be 60 cm paragraph [0084]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to us the distance between the eye and the display as taught by Kobayashi in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The optical distance from the display 11 to the subject eye E is not limited to 40 cm at the time of the near examination, and may be different optical distances paragraph [0084]).
Claims 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Umran (US 20040161730 A1) in view of Krail et al. (US 20210169322 A1), Oz et al. (US 20200329961 A1), Park (US 20190290529 A1), Sun (CN 212018445 U), Fujikado et al. (US 11363948 B2) and Kobayashi et al. (US 20200221943 A1) as applied to claim 16 above and in further view of Knowles et al. (US 20200333258 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Urman, Krail, Oz, Park, Sun, Fujikado and Kobayashi discloses all the limitations of claim 16 and Urman further discloses, wherein a color of the double-separation plate (vanes 52, 54 fig. 2a) assembly is black (the vanes are black in color paragraph [0047]).
Urman does not explicitly disclose, which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee, and matte carbon black.
However Krail discloses in at least figure 22, a training method implemented which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee (the system for determining binocular alignment 310 fig. 22).
Krail further teaches (paragraph [0171]): “The computer 350 can be configured to carry out steps of this method 100. As such, in some embodiments, the computer 350 can be configured to determine a Fixation Disparity of a patient as an amount of angular misalignment between a central target and a peripheral fusion lock of moving targets around an image with a blank center, as part of the determining of the binocular alignment.”
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the training method of tracking moving targets unit they are fused or fusion is broken as taught by Krail into the eyesight training device of Urman. One would have been motivated to perform this tracking step because Krail teaches that fixation disparity of a patient can be determined by the angular misalignment between the central targets and the peripheral fusion lock of moving targets. (Krail paragraph [0171]).
Additionally Knowles discloses in at least figure 5, matte carbon black (the material used for absorbing light can be a carbon layer and include matte black paint paragraph [0043]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use the matte carbon black as taught by Knowles in the FOV inhibiting apparatus of Urman. The coating on the plate is used for absorbing light to control where light is reflected paragraph [0043]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-13 and 18-21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 10 would be allowable, Urman discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses, using the eyesight training device according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above);
wherein Step 1, setting a distance (the included angle changes as a result of the distance between the near screen sides of the right vane 54 and left vane 52 and the adjustments of angles 75 and 85 as shown below in fig. 3) between the two separation plates (right vane 54 and left vane 52 fig. 3) at a near-screen side (near screen side as shown below in fig. 3) according to a primary eye position of a trainee (the left vane 52 properly adjusted to an angle 75 such that information presented on the right hand side 23 of the display is blocked from view by the user's left eye 60 and the right vane 54 properly adjusted to an angle 85 such that information presented on the left hand side 21 of the display 20 is blocked from view by the user's right eye 62 paragraph [0022]).
Krail discloses in at least figure 22, a training method implemented which is used for eyesight correction of a trainee (the system for determining binocular alignment 310 fig. 22),
Step 2, providing at least one movable central training visual target (the computer can move projected visible images 326-1 and 326-2 paragraph [0165]) on each of left and right sides of the separated display screen (displays 322-1 and 322-2 fig. 22).
Urman or in combination with other references does not disclose, wherein at least one central training visual target is located at a position with separation 2-30 mm larger than a pupil distance at the primary eye position,
Step 3, providing at least a first peripheral training visual target and a second peripheral training visual target at a position of 25 degrees to 60 degrees in a temporal visual field of the trainee on each of left and right sides of the display screen
Step 4, moving a less temporal first peripheral training visual target to a more temporal second peripheral training visual target;
Step 5, returning the first peripheral training visual target to its initial position along its original path when a brain visual center of the trainee percepts that an image of the first peripheral training visual target and an image of the second peripheral training visual target overlap;
Step 6, repeating above steps 1 to 5 for at least two times;
wherein a separation distance between left and right central training visual targets at a beginning of training is 2-30mm larger than the pupil distance at the primary eye position.
A combination of Urman other references fails to teach this limitation because there is no prior art available that teaches the detection of overlap of a moving peripheral target and a fixed peripheral target where the moving target moves back after detection . Therefore the combination of features is considered to be allowable.
Claims 11-13 and 18-21 would be allowable, for their dependency on claim 10.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Giraudet et al. (US 20150212342 A1) discloses a Method for Determining Eye Movement with peripheral training visual targets between 20-80 degrees.
Sztuk et al. (US 20210173474 A1) discloses a Predictive Eye Tracking System with left and right displays.
Horie (US 7393102 B2) discloses an Eyesight Improving Device with a moving display.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872