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
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) filed 01/19/2024 and 01/29/2025. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
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. Claims 1 and 7 recite “output means”. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 5 recites “target display means” instead of “display” as amended throughout the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-6 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (USPG Pub No. 2001/0043309), hereinafter “Hayashi”.
Regarding claim 1, Hayashi discloses a target presentation device (1) for presenting a target to a subject eye (E) (see Fig. 1, Paragraph 27, Line 2), the target presentation device (1) comprising: controller (40) configured to set a display format (46) of a visual acuity value of an examination target used in an examination of the subject eye (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 55, Paragraph 56, Lines 11-13), based on an operation signal (see Figs. 7, 8, Paragraph 59, Lines 6-14); and an output means (2) configured to output a target to be presented to the subject eye (E) (Paragraph 28, Lines 3-5), based on the visual acuity value represented in the display format set by the controller (Paragraph 59, lines1-14).
Regarding claim 2, Hayashi discloses wherein the examination target used in the examination of the subject eye includes a plurality of targets having different visual acuity values (see Fig. 4, Paragraphs 36-38), and that the controller (40) is further configured to set the visual acuity values of the plurality of targets to have a predetermined step, based on the display format (see Figs. 9-12, Paragraphs 67-70).
Regarding claim 3, Hayashi discloses wherein that the controller (40) is further configured to change the predetermined step to a step different from the predetermined step, based on an operation signal (see Figs. 9-12, Paragraphs 67-70, 82).
Regarding claim 4, Hayashi discloses wherein the examination target used in the examination of the subject eye includes a plurality of targets having different visual acuity values (see Fig. 4, Paragraphs 36-38), and that the controller (40) is further configured to set the visual acuity values of the plurality of targets to have any step, based on an operation signal, the visual acuity values being represented in the display format (see Figs. 7, 9-12, Paragraphs 67-70).
Regarding claim 5, Hayashi discloses wherein that the controller (40) is further configured to add a target having a new visual acuity value represented in the display format (46), based on an operation signal (see Figs. 7, 8, Paragraphs 56-61).
Regarding claim 6, Hayashi discloses wherein that the controller (40) is further configured to set (via 42) a type of the examination target, based on an operation signal (see Figs. 7, 8, Paragraphs 56, 59).
Regarding claim 14, Hayashi discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (38) storing a target presentation program used in a target presentation device (1) for presenting a target to a subject eye (E) (see Figs. 1, 8, Paragraph 27, Line 2, Paragraph 62, Lines 6-8), wherein the target presentation program comprises instructions which, when the program is executed by a processor of the target presentation device (1) (Paragraph 62, Lines 6-8), cause the target presentation device to perform: a format setting step of setting a display format (46) of a visual acuity value of an examination target used in an examination of the subject eye (see Fig. 7, Paragraph 55, Paragraph 56, Lines 11-13), based on an operation signal (see Figs. 7, 8, Paragraph 59, Lines 6-14); and an output step of outputting (via 2) a target to be presented to the subject eye (E) (Paragraph 28, Lines 3-5), based on the visual acuity value represented in the display format set in the format setting step (Paragraph 59, lines1-14).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7-9, 12, 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (USPG Pub No. 2001/0043309) in view of Kani (JP 2006-246992 A).
Regarding claim 7, Hayashi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the output means is a display configured to display the target, that the controller is further configured to cause the display to display the target, and the controller is further configured to acquire a display size in which the target is displayed on the display to cause the display to display the target in the acquired display size, based on the visual acuity value input from a visual acuity value setting screen corresponding to the display format. In the same field of endeavor, Kani discloses wherein the output means is a display (14) configured to display the target (see Figs. 2, 4), that the controller is further configured to cause the display to display the target (see Figs. 1, 2), and the controller is further configured to acquire a display size in which the target is displayed on the display to cause the display to display the target in the acquired display size (see Pg. 16, Paragraphs 1-6 of translation provided), based on the visual acuity value input from a visual acuity value setting screen corresponding to the display format (see Pg. 16, Paragraphs 1-6). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Hayashi with wherein the output means is a display configured to display the target, that the controller is further configured to cause the display to display the target, and the controller is further configured to acquire a display size in which the target is displayed on the display to cause the display to display the target in the acquired display size, based on the visual acuity value input from a visual acuity value setting screen corresponding to the display format of Kani for the purpose of obtaining more accurate results of a visual acuity examination (Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Hayashi and Kani teach the device set forth above for claim 7, Kani further discloses wherein that the controller is further configured to (see Figs. 2, 5, 7): randomly align a plurality of targets in a straight line in at least one of a column direction and a row direction to generate a first target group displayed on an identical screen of the display (see Figs. 5, 7, Pg. 15, Paragraph 8 – Pg. 16, Paragraph 4), cause the display to display the first target group generated by the controller (see Figs. 5, 7, Pg. 15, Paragraph 8 – Pg. 16, Paragraph 4), and randomly align the plurality of targets to set the targets adjacent to each other to have different contents (see Figs. 5, 7, Pg. 15, Paragraph 8 – Pg. 16, Paragraph 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the target presentation device of Hayashi with the teachings of Kani for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Hayashi and Kani teach the device set forth above for claim 8, Kani further discloses wherein the first target group includes the plurality of targets having an identical first visual acuity value (see Figs. 5, 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the target presentation device of Hayashi with the teachings of Kani for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 12, Hayashi and Kani teach the device set forth above for claim 8, Kani further discloses wherein the target is a target having an orientation, and the controller is further configured to set the targets to have different orientations (see Figs. 5, 7, Pg. 15, Paragraph 5, Paragraph 8 – Pg. 16, Paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the target presentation device of Hayashi with the teachings of Kani for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 13, Hayashi further discloses wherein the target is a character target or a numerical symbol target (see Fig. 4), and the controller is further configured to set the targets to have different characters or different numerical symbols (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, Hayashi discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the target presentation program further comprises instructions which, when the program is executed by the processor of the target presentation device, cause the target presentation device to perform: a generation step of randomly aligning a plurality of targets in a straight line in at least one of a column direction and a row direction to generate a first target group displayed on an identical screen of display; and a display control step of causing the display to display the first target group generated in the generation step, and in the generation step, the plurality of targets are randomly aligned to set the targets adjacent to each other are set to have different contents. In the same field of endeavor, Kani discloses wherein the target presentation program further comprises instructions which, when the program is executed by the processor of the target presentation device (see Figs. 2, 5, 7), cause the target presentation device to perform: a generation step of randomly aligning a plurality of targets in a straight line in at least one of a column direction and a row direction to generate a first target group displayed on an identical screen of display (see Figs. 5, 7, Pg. 15, Paragraph 8 – Pg. 16, Paragraph 4); and a display control step of causing the display to display the first target group generated in the generation step (see Figs. 5, 7, Pg. 15, Paragraph 8 – Pg. 16, Paragraph 4), and in the generation step, the plurality of targets are randomly aligned to set the targets adjacent to each other are set to have different contents (see Figs. 5, 7, Pg. 15, Paragraph 8 – Pg. 16, Paragraph 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the medium of Hayashi with wherein the target presentation program further comprises instructions which, when the program is executed by the processor of the target presentation device, cause the target presentation device to perform: a generation step of randomly aligning a plurality of targets in a straight line in at least one of a column direction and a row direction to generate a first target group displayed on an identical screen of display; and a display control step of causing the display to display the first target group generated in the generation step, and in the generation step, the plurality of targets are randomly aligned to set the targets adjacent to each other are set to have different contents of Kani for the purpose of obtaining more accurate results of a visual acuity examination (Abstract).
Claims 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hayashi (USPG Pub No. 2001/0043309) in view of Kani (JP 2006-246992 A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lesmes (USPG Pub No. 2019/0038125).
Regarding claim 10, Hayashi and Kani disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the controller is further configured to acquire a switching signal for switching the first target group displayed on the target display means, randomly align the plurality of targets in a straight line in at least one of a column direction and a row direction to generate a second target group displayed on the identical screen of the display, based on the switching signal from the controller, switch a display of the display from the first target group to the second target group, and set the targets to have different contents, in a case where an order of alignment of the plurality of targets forming the second target group is identical to an order of alignment of the plurality of targets forming the first target group, and a display position of the target in the second target group overlaps a display position of the target in the first target group. In the same field of endeavor, Lesmes discloses wherein the controller is further configured to acquire a switching signal for switching the first target group displayed on the target display means (Paragraphs 344, 348), randomly align the plurality of targets in a straight line in at least one of a column direction and a row direction to generate a second target group displayed on the identical screen of the display (see Figs. 11A-13C), based on the switching signal from the controller, switch a display of the display from the first target group to the second target group (see Figs. 11A-13C), and set the targets to have different contents (see Figs. 11A-13C, Paragraph 10), in a case where an order of alignment of the plurality of targets forming the second target group is identical to an order of alignment of the plurality of targets forming the first target group (see Figs. 11A-13C, Paragraph 10), and a display position of the target in the second target group overlaps a display position of the target in the first target group (see Figs. 11A-13C). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Hayashi and Kani with wherein the controller is further configured to acquire a switching signal for switching the first target group displayed on the target display means, randomly align the plurality of targets in a straight line in at least one of a column direction and a row direction to generate a second target group displayed on the identical screen of the display, based on the switching signal from the controller, switch a display of the display from the first target group to the second target group, and set the targets to have different contents, in a case where an order of alignment of the plurality of targets forming the second target group is identical to an order of alignment of the plurality of targets forming the first target group, and a display position of the target in the second target group overlaps a display position of the target in the first target group of Lesmes for the purpose of providing an improved method of obtaining more accurate and precise visual acuity results (Paragraphs 5, 6).
Regarding claim 11, Hayashi, Kani and Lesmes teach the device set forth above for claim 10, Kani further discloses wherein the second target group includes at least one of the plurality of targets having the identical first visual acuity value and the plurality of targets having a second visual acuity value different from the identical first visual acuity value (Pg. 15, Paragraph 8 – Pg. 16, Paragraph 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the target presentation device of Hayashi and Lesmes with the teachings of Kani for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Prior Art Citations
Hirayama (USPG Pub No. 2012/0249951) is being cited herein to show a target presentation device relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1/10/2026