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 .
Examiner’s Comments
In view of the amendments, the prior 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claims 1-12, 15, 18, 19 and 22-26 and prior objections of claims 8, 13, 15, 16, 18 and 19 are withdrawn.
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 1-3, 6, 7, 9-11, 18, 20, 21 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham et al. (WO 2021/123850 A2), hereinafter “Abraham”, in view of Horn (USP No. 6,260,970).
Regarding claim 1, Abraham discloses a computer implemented vision testing system comprising processing circuitry (Pg. 1, lines 10-12, 17-24), the testing system comprising or being configured to communicate with at least one visual display system and at least one user input device configured to receive user input indicative of a user’s perception of displayed items (Pg. 1, Lines 15-24), the processing circuitry being configured to control at least one visual display system to (Pg. 1, Lines 10-12): display one or more items (83, 84) against a background (Pg. 35, Lines 19-20, see Fig. 12), such that at least one display property of the one or more items differs from that of the background while at least one other display property of the one or more items is the same as that of the background (Pg. 35, Lines 19-26, Pg. 36, Lines 7-14); or display different items or groups of items (85, 86) of the one or more items (83, 84) wherein the at least one display property differs between different items or groups of items (Pg. 39, Lines 1-28, Pg. 40, Lines 12-14, see Fig. 12); wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a signal from the user input device that depends on whether a user is able or unable to distinguish the displayed one or more items from the background (steps 807-808 of Fig. 8); and determine for the users’ ability to perceive the at least one display property comprising or based on the at least one display property with which at least one item is being displayed for which the user is able or unable to distinguish the at least one item that is displayed from the background (Pg. 41, Line 8 – Pg. 42, Line 4). Abraham discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify and vary the at least one display property of the one or more items relative to that of the background; or wherein the at least one display property relative to the background differs, and determine a value or based on a value. In the same field of endeavor, Horn discloses and vary the at least one display property of the one or more items (8) relative to that of the background (14) (see Fig. 16Col. 7, Lines 26-65); or wherein the at least one display property relative to the background differs (see Fig. 16Col. 7, Lines 26-65), and determine a value or based on a value (Col. 5, Lines 34-37). 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 testing system of Abraham with and vary the at least one display property of the one or more items relative to that of the background; or wherein the at least one display property relative to the background differs, and determine a value or based on a value of Horn for the purpose of enhancing the ability to test for eye disease with an improved accuracy (Col. 2, Lines 57-59).
Regarding claim 2, Abraham further discloses wherein the display properties comprise at least two or all of: luminance, hue and/or saturation (Pg. 39, Lines 1-28, Pg. 40, Lines 12-14).
Regarding claim 3, Abraham further discloses wherein: the at least one display property comprises saturation (Pg. 28, Lines 17-23); and the at least one other display property comprises luminance and/or hue (Pg. 28, Lines 17-23).
Regarding claim 6, Abraham further discloses configured to: provide successively displayed items of the one or more items, with each successively displayed item having a value for the one or more display properties that is closer to or further from that of the background than a previously displayed item (Pg. 43, Lines 23-29); or vary the one or more display properties of the one or more items over time to be closer to that of the background (Pg. 43, Lines 23-29).
Regarding claim 7, Abraham further discloses configured to: provide successively displayed items of the one or more items (Pg. 43, Lines 23-29), wherein the testing system is configured to switch or alternate between: providing one or more of the successively displayed items having a value for the one or more display properties that is further from that of the background than a previously displayed item (Pg. 43, Lines 23-29); and providing one or more of the successively displayed item having the value for the one or more display properties that is closer to that of the background than a previously displayed item (Pg. 43, Lines 23-29); or switch or alternate between varying the one or more display properties of the one or more items over time to be further from that of the background and varying the one or more display properties of the one or more items over time to be closer to that of the background (Pg. 43, Lines 23-29).
Regarding claim 9, Abraham further discloses wherein the background is of a different colour to the one or more items (Pg. 35, Lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 10, Abraham further discloses wherein the items are coloured red and the background is coloured grey (Pg. 18, Lines 25-28, Pg. 35, Lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 11, Abraham further discloses wherein: the at least one display property of the of the one or more items that is varied or differs between items or groups of items includes saturation; and the other display properties of the one or more items that are the same as those of the background include luminance and hue (Pg. 35, Line 27 – Pg. 36, Line 12).
Regarding claim 18, Abraham further discloses wherein a plurality of the items or groups of items are provided, each having a different property, and the input device is configured to receive an indication of a user's perception of the property of the item being displayed (Pg. 18, Line 25 – Pg. 19, Line 11).
Regarding claim 20, Abraham further discloses comprising identifying a condition of the user based on the value for the users' ability to perceive the at least one display property (Pg. 41 , Line 9 – Pg. 42, Line 25).
Regarding claim 21, Abraham further discloses wherein the condition is a condition of the eye, optic nerve, or visual processing part of brain (Pg. 41, Line 9 – Pg. 42, Line 25).
Regarding claim 23, Abraham further discloses wherein a colour model defines at least one or each of the display properties of the item relative to a baseline grey level or a grey level of the background (Pg. 18, Lines 25-28, Pg. 35, Lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 24, Abraham further discloses wherein the colour model defines the saturation of the item based on a baseline grey level or a grey level of the background modified by altering one or two amongst the red, green, and blue values for a colour (Pg. 18, Lines 25-28, Pg. 35, Lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 25, Abraham discloses a method of operating the testing system of claim 1, the method comprising operating the testing system to: display, on the at least one visual display system, one or more items (83, 84) against a background (Pg. 35, Lines 19-20, see Fig. 12), wherein at least one display property of the one or more items differs from that of the background and at least one other display property of the one or more items is the same as that of the background (Pg. 35, Lines 19-26, Pg. 36, Lines 7-14); vary the at least one display property of the one or more items displayed on the at least one visual display system (Pg. 28, Lines 17-23); or display, on the at least one visual display system, different items or groups of items (85, 86) of the one or more items (83, 84) wherein the at least one display property differs between different items or groups of items (Pg. 39, Lines 1-28, Pg. 40, Lines 12-14, see Fig. 12); receive a signal from the user input device that depends on whether a user is able or unable to distinguish the displayed one or more items from the background (steps 807-808 of Fig. 8); and determine for the users’ ability to perceive the at least one display property comprising or based on the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed for which the user is able or unable to distinguish the at least one item that is displayed from the background (Pg. 41, Line 8 – Pg. 42, Line 4). Abraham and Horn teach the vision testing system set forth above for claim 1, Horn further discloses and determine a value or based on a value. In the same field of endeavor, Horn discloses and determine a value or based on a value (Col. 5, Lines 34-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Abraham with the teachings of Horn for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 26, Abraham discloses a computer program product configured such that, when executed by the testing system of claim 1, causes the testing system to: display, on the at least one visual display system, one or more items (83, 84) against a background (Pg. 35, Lines 19-20, see Fig. 12), wherein at least one display property of the one or more items differs from that of the background and at least one other display property of the one or more items is the same as that of the background (Pg. 35, Lines 19-26, Pg. 36, Lines 7-14); vary the at least one display property of the one or more items on the at least one visual display system (Pg. 28, Lines 17-23); or display, on the at least one visual display system, different items or groups of items (85, 86) of the one or more items (83, 84) wherein the at least one display property differs between different items or groups of items (Pg. 39, Lines 1-28, Pg. 40, Lines 12-14, see Fig. 12); receive a signal from the user input device that depends on whether a user is able or unable to distinguish the displayed one or more items from the background (steps 807-808 of Fig. 8); and determine for the users’ ability to perceive the at least one display property comprising or based on the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed for which the user is able or unable to distinguish the at least one item that is displayed from the background (Pg. 41, Line 8 – Pg. 42, Line 4). Abraham and Horn teach the vision testing system set forth above for claim 1, Horn further discloses and determine a value or based on a value. In the same field of endeavor, Horn discloses and determine a value or based on a value (Col. 5, Lines 34-37). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the computer program product of Abraham with the teachings of Horn for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (WO 2021/123850 A2) in view of Horn (USP No. 6,260,970) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKinnon et al. (USP No. 6,227,668), hereinafter “McKinnon”.
Regarding claim 4, Abraham and Horn disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify configured to successively reduce or increase the saturation of successively displayed items or to reduce or increase the saturation of the one or more items with time. In the same field of endeavor, McKinnon discloses configured to successively reduce or increase the saturation of successively displayed items or to reduce or increase the saturation of the one or more items with time (Col. 5, Lines 4-37). 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 testing system of Abraham and Horn with configured to successively reduce or increase the saturation of successively displayed items or to reduce or increase the saturation of the one or more items with time of McKinnon for the purpose of providing a visual testing system having greater sensitivity for the early detection of eye disorders (Col. 1, Lines 14-16, Col. 2, Lines 51-54).
Regarding claim 5, Abraham, Horn and McKinnon teach the testing system of claim 4, McKinnon further discloses configured to switch or alternate between increasing and decreasing the saturation of successively displayed items or to switch or alternate between increasing and decreasing the saturation of the one or more items with time (Col. 5, Lines 4-37).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the testing system of Abraham and Horn with the teachings of McKinnon for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 4.
Claims 12 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (WO 2021/123850 A2) in view of Horn (USP No. 6,260,970) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abou Shousha et al. (USP No. 11,659,988), hereinafter “Abou Shousha”.
Regarding claim 12, Abraham and Horn disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the visual display system comprises a headset display. In the same field of endeavor, Abou Shousha discloses wherein the visual display system comprises a headset display (Col. 5, Lines 43-47). 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 testing system of Abraham and Horn with wherein the visual display system comprises a headset display of Abou Shousha for the purpose of providing an improved vision testing system that is more efficient (Col. 1, Lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 14, Abraham and Horn disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the user input device is a passive user input device for sensing passive user input. In the same field of endeavor, Abou Shousha discloses wherein the user input device is a passive user input device for sensing passive user input (Col. 6, Lines 17-20). 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 testing system of Abraham and Horn with wherein the user input device is a passive user input device for sensing passive user input of Abou Shousha for the purpose of providing an improved vision testing system that is more efficient (Col. 1, Lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 15, Abraham and Horn disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the visual display system is configured to move the at least one item, and wherein the user input device is configured to receive user input indicative of a movement or location of the at least one item and optionally, the user input device comprises one or more from: a motion tracker of a headset, at least one accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and/or at least one camera. In the same field of endeavor, Abou Shousha discloses wherein the visual display system is configured to move the at least one item, and wherein the user input device is configured to receive user input indicative of a movement or location of the at least one item and optionally, the user input device comprises one or more from: a motion tracker of a headset, at least one accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and/or at least one camera (Col. 18, Lines 51-56). 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 testing system of Abraham and Horn with wherein the visual display system is configured to move the at least one item, and wherein the user input device is configured to receive user input indicative of the movement or location of the at least one item and optionally, the user input device comprises one or more from: a motion tracker of a headset, at least one accelerometer, a gyroscope, a magnetometer, and/or at least one camera of Abou Shousha for the purpose of providing an improved vision testing system that is more efficient (Col. 1, Lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 16, Abraham and Horn disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the user input device comprises an eye and/or head movement tracker for tracking movement of a users' eye and/or head, the testing system being configured to: determine when the movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with a position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item; determine the value of the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed when the position and/or movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with the position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item; and provide a value for the users' ability to perceive the at least one display property comprising or based on the determined value of the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed when the position and/or movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with the position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item. In the same field of endeavor, Abou Shousha discloses wherein the user input device comprises an eye and/or head movement tracker for tracking movement of a users' eye and/or head (Col. 6, Lines 17-20), the testing system being configured to: determine when the movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with a position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item (Col. 26, Lines 25-45); determine the value of the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed when the position and/or movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with the position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item (Col. 26, Line 25 – Col. 27, Line 29, Col. 84, Lines 36-40); and provide a value for the users' ability to perceive the at least one display property comprising or based on the determined value of the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed when the position and/or movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with the position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item (Col. 26, Line 25 – Col. 27, Line 29, Col. 84, Lines 36-40). 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 testing system of Abraham and Horn with wherein the user input device comprises an eye and/or head movement tracker for tracking movement of a users' eye and/or head, the testing system being configured to: determine when the movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with a position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item; determine the value of the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed when the position and/or movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with the position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item; and provide a value for the users' ability to perceive the at least one display property comprising or based on the determined value of the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed when the position and/or movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with the position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item of Abou Shousha for the purpose of providing an improved vision testing system that is more efficient (Col. 1, Lines 21-28).
Regarding claim 17, Abraham, Horn and Abou Shousha teach the testing system of claim 16, Abou Shousha further discloses wherein one or more or each of: the determination of when the movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with the position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item (Col. 26, Line 25 – Col. 27, Line 29, Col. 84, Lines 36-40); the determination of the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed when the position and/or movement of the user's eye and/or head ceases or begins to be correlated with the position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item (Col. 26, Line 25 – Col. 27, Line 29, Col. 84, Lines 36-40); and/or the determination and/or provision of the value for the users' ability to perceive the at least one display property is performed offline and/or not during the test and/or by a remote computer that is remote from the user input device that is optionally connected to the user input device via a wide area network (Col. 26, Line 25 – Col. 27, Line 29, Col. 84, Lines 36-40). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the testing system of Abraham and Horn with the teachings of Abou Shousha for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 16.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (WO 2021/123850 A2) in view of Horn (USP No. 6,260,970) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kanazawa et al. (USP No. 8,087,781), hereinafter “Kanazawa”.
Regarding claim 19, Abraham and Horn disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the properties comprise at least one of: a shape of the item, an optotype, number or letter of an item, a size of the item, a number of items in the group of items, a location of the item, a presence of movement, a speed of movement, a change in shape, a change in size, and/or a direction of movement of the item. In the same field of endeavor, Kanazawa discloses wherein the properties comprise at least one of: a shape of the item, an optotype, number or letter of an item, a size of the item, a number of items in the group of items, a location of the item, a presence of movement, a speed of movement, a change in shape, a change in size, and/or a direction of movement of the item (see Figs. 3A-4D, 8). 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 testing system of Abraham and Horn with wherein the properties comprise at least one of: a shape of the item, an optotype, number or letter of an item, a size of the item, a number of items in the group of items, a location of the item, a presence of movement, a speed of movement, a change in shape, a change in size, and/or a direction of movement of the item of Kanazawa for the purpose of providing a method and system capable of accurately performing a visual test (Col. 2, Lines 18-21, 32-33).
Claims 22 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (WO 2021/123850 A2) in view of Horn (USP No. 6,260,970) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dana et al. (USPG Pub No. 2013/0226008), hereinafter “Dana”.
Regarding claim 22, Abraham and Horn disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify comprising a colour model mapping at least one of: red, green and/or blue values to values of at least one or each of: the saturation, luminance and/or hue. In the same field of endeavor, Dana discloses comprising a colour model mapping at least one of: red, green and/or blue values to values of at least one or each of: the saturation, luminance and/or hue (Paragraphs 40-51). 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 testing system of Abraham and Horn with comprising a colour model mapping at least one of: red, green and/or blue values to values of at least one or each of: the saturation, luminance and/or hue of Dana for the purpose of determining or expressing the perceived color (Paragraph 41, Lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 27, Abraham and Horn disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein the hue, saturation and luminance are determined from values of R, G, B values using a colour model in which:
PNG
media_image1.png
296
506
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, Dana discloses wherein the hue, saturation and luminance are determined from values of R, G, B values using a colour model in which (Paragraphs 40-51). 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 testing system of Abraham and Horn with wherein the hue, saturation and luminance are determined from values of R, G, B values using a colour model in which of Dana for the purpose of determining or expressing the perceived color (Paragraph 41, Lines 3-5). Abraham, Horn and Dana disclose the claimed invention, but do not present the transformation formulas as recited in the claim. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). 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 testing system of Abraham, Horn and Dana with present the transformation formulas as recited in the claim for the purpose of determining or expressing the perceived color (Paragraph 41, Lines 3-5 of Dana). The transformation components presented in Dana are capable of being modified by one or ordinary skill in the art to obtain the formulas recited in the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-7, 9-12 and 14-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Horn cures the deficiencies of Abraham and addresses the subject matter challenged by Applicant. For these reasons the claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 8/25/2026
Prosecution Insights