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 Statement (PTO-1449) filed 01/25/2024 and 02/29/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 15, 18, 19 and 22-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 includes limitations to the use of a display without limitations for testing or structures for the computer implemented testing system or visual display system. In addition, the claim language does not clearly convey the scope of the invention which is a vision testing system. The limitations of claim 13 recite the use of the testing system as a vision testing system for a user.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 3 recites “the user” where there is no prior mention.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 7 recites “the value” where there is no prior mention.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 1-2 recites “the display” where there is no prior mention of a display, only a visual display system. Line 2 recites “the user input device” and line 3 recites “the movement or location of the at least one item” where there are no prior mentions.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 4 recites “the position and/or movement of the movement of the at least one item” where there is no prior mention.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: line 2 recites “the user input device” and line 3 recites “the user’s perception” where there are no prior mentions.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: lines 3-4 recite “the presence of movement, the speed of movement” where there are no prior mentions.
To prevent antecedent basis issues, 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 1-3, 6-11, 13, 18, 20-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Abraham et al. (WO 2021/123850 A2), hereinafter “Abraham”.
Regarding claim 1, Abraham discloses a computer implemented testing system 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), 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); and vary the at least one display property of the one or more items (Pg. 28, Lines 17-23); 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).
Regarding claim 2, Abraham 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 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 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 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 8, Abraham discloses configured to: provide the successively displayed items or vary the one or more display properties at least until the user is able or unable to distinguish the displayed item or items from the background (Pg. 41, Line 8 – Pg. 42, Line 4); and determining 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 user is able or unable to distinguish the at least one item displayed from the background (Pg. 41, Line 8 – Pg. 42, Line 4).
Regarding claim 9, Abraham discloses wherein the background is of a different colour to the one or more items (Pg. 35, Lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 10, Abraham 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 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 13, Abraham discloses comprising or configured to communicate with a user input device, the user input device being configured to receive user input indicative of the user's perception of the displayed items (Pg. 18, Lines 25-28, see Figs. 6, 8), wherein the testing system is configured to: identify when the user input indicative of the user's perception of the displayed items differs from, or starts to become correlated with, the items being displayed (Pg. 18, Line 25 – Pg. 19, Line 11, see Fig. 8); determine the value of the at least one display property with which the at least one item is being displayed when it is identified that the user input indicative of the user's perception of the displayed items differs from, or starts to become correlated with, the items being displayed (Pg. 18, Line 25 – Pg. 19, Line 11, see Fig. 8); 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 it is identified that the user input indicative of the user's perception of the displayed items differs from or becomes the same as the items being displayed (Pg. 18, Line 25 – Pg. 19, Line 11, see Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 18, Abraham discloses wherein a plurality of the items or groups of items are provided, each having a different property, and the user input device is configured to receive an indication of the user's perception of the property of the item being displayed (Pg. 18, Line 25 – Pg. 19, Line 11).
Regarding claim 20, Abraham 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 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 22, Abraham discloses comprising a colour model defining at least one or each of the display properties of the item based on red, green and blue values for the colour (Pg. 16, Lines 12-28).
Regarding claim 23, Abraham discloses wherein the colour model defines at least one or each of the display properties of the item based on a baseline grey level or a grey level of the background modified by altering the at least one other of the display properties (Pg. 18, Lines 25-28, Pg. 35, Lines 19-26).
Regarding claim 24, Abraham 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 the 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 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); and vary the at least one display property of the one or more items (Pg. 28, Lines 17-23); 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).
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 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); and vary the at least one display property of the one or more items (Pg. 28, Lines 17-23); 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).
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 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (WO 2021/123850 A2) in view of McKinnon et al. (USP No. 6,227,668), hereinafter “McKinnon”.
Regarding claim 4, Abraham discloses the claimed invention, but does 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 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 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 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 Abou Shousha et al. (USP No. 11,659,988), hereinafter “Abou Shousha”.
Regarding claim 12, Abraham discloses the claimed invention, but does 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 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 discloses the claimed invention, but does 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 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 discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the display 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. In the same field of endeavor, Abou Shousha discloses wherein the display 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 (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 with wherein the display 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 discloses the claimed invention, but does 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 the 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 the 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 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 the 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 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 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 Kanazawa et al. (USP No. 8,087,781), hereinafter “Kanazawa”.
Regarding claim 19, Abraham discloses the claimed invention, but does 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, the presence of movement, the 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, the presence of movement, the 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 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, the presence of movement, the 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).
Prior Art Citations
Liu et al. (USP No. 12,343,080) being cited herein to show a testing system 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 1/24/2026