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 Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P. 201.14(c), acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on the application filed on July 30th, 2021 (EP 21306064.3). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated January 29th, 2024 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation “comprises first and a second screens” in line 2 should read “comprises first and second screens”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation “said window forming said means allowing said user to see said displaying unit through said optical unit despite the disposition of the diffuser” is unclear and renders the claim indefinite. Specifically, it is unclear what “the disposition of the diffuser” means here, as it could mean a position in space or an optical property among other things. Accordingly, for the purpose of examining the claims currently pending, this limitation will be interpreted to mean “said window allowing said user to see said displaying unit through said optical unit”.
Regarding claims 3-5, 7-10, and 18-20, these claims depend on a rejected base claim and are therefore rejected for at least the reasons stated supra.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kobayakawa (JP 2003093344 A) (Note a translated version of this document has been provided and is cited below).
Regarding claim 1, Kobayakawa teaches a wearable device for determining a parameter representative of a visual acuity of a user, comprising:
a displaying unit configured to display at least one image to at least one eye of the user when the device is worn by the user (See, e.g., Fig. 6 generally, and also disk 24 specifically, which is a display unit);
an optical unit disposed between the displaying unit and at least one eye of the user when the device is worn by the user (See, e.g., imaging lens 23 in Fig. 6);
a diffuser disposed between said optical unit and at least one eye of the user when the device is worn by the user so that said diffuser faces at least one eye of the user (See, e.g., the two visual field plates 5 in Fig. 6);
at least one light source for stimulating at least one eye of the user (See, e.g., either light source 7, 8, or 25 respectively);
means allowing said user to see said displaying unit through said optical unit despite the disposition of the diffuser between said optical unit and at least one eye of the user when the device is worn by the user (See, e.g., the gap between field plates 5 in Fig. 6 which meets this limitation in light of the 112 rejection above); and
a sensing unit configured to acquire at least one signal representative of a visual acuity of the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0018] which explains how the processor automatically measures the visual acuity by judging whether the response is correct or not, which corresponds to a sensing unit).
Regarding claim 14, Kobayakawa teaches a method for determining a visual acuity of a user, comprising the following steps:
providing a device, comprising:
a displaying unit configured to display at least one image to at least one eye of the user when the device is worn by the user (See, e.g., Fig. 6 generally, and also disk 24 specifically, which is a display unit);
an optical unit disposed between the displaying unit and at least one eye of the user when the device is worn by the user (See, e.g., imaging lens 23 in Fig. 6);
a diffuser disposed between said optical unit and at least one eye of the user when the device is worn by the user so that said diffuser faces at least one eye of the user (See, e.g., the two visual field plates 5 in Fig. 6);
at least one light source for stimulating at least one eye of the user (See, e.g., either light source 7, 8, or 25 respectively);
means allowing said user to see said displaying unit through said optical unit despite the disposition of the diffuser between said optical unit and at least one eye of the user when the device is worn by the user (See, e.g., the gap between field plates 5 in Fig. 6 which meets this limitation in light of the 112 rejection above); and
a sensing unit configured to acquire at least one signal representative of a visual acuity of the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0018] which explains how the processor automatically measures the visual acuity by judging whether the response is correct or not, which corresponds to a sensing unit);
positioning the device on the user's head such that said diffuser faces at least one eye of the user (See, e.g., Fig. 6 which shows this);
displaying at least one image to at least one eye of the user through said optical unit to allow the user to see said at least one image (Note this is how the device works in normal operation),
acquiring at least one signal representative of a visual acuity of the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0029] which explains this); and
determining a parameter representative of a visual acuity of a user depending on said at least one signal representative of a visual acuity of the user (See, e.g., paragraph [0018] which explains this.
Regarding claim 16, Kobayakawa teaches the method set forth above and further teaches wherein the method is a computer-implemented method (Note insofar as there is a processor to judge the accuracy of the operation this limitation is met).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayakawa (JP 2003093344 A) (Note a translated version of this document has been provided and is cited below).
Regarding claim 6, Kobayakawa teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein said optical unit is configured to provide an optical magnification lower than 1 to said optical unit.
However, the magnification level of the optical unit corresponds to a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, in the instant case the magnification level directly impacts the perceived size of the display. 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 magnification level of the optical unit to be within the claimed range for the purpose of increasing optimizing the perceived size of the display.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayakawa (JP 2003093344 A) (Note a translated version of this document has been provided and is cited below) in view of Krueger et al. (US 2020/0214559 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kobayakawa teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure of an imaging unit configured to take at least one image of at least one eye of the user.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Krueger teaches the use of a camera, i.e. imaging unit, to take a picture of at least one eye of a user (See, e.g., eye sensor 406 in Fig. 1).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Kobayakawa to include an imaging unit, as taught by Krueger, for the purpose of adding additional utility to the device (Note that adding in a camera would allow for image capture during the operation of the device which would provide additional options to the administrator of the operation, i.e. adding utility).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kobayakawa (JP 2003093344 A) (Note a translated version of this document has been provided and is cited below) in view of Waldern et al (US 2001/0043163 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Waldern teaches the device set forth above but lacks an explicit disclosure wherein said optical unit comprises at least one lens comprising an adjustable power or being configured to move at least one lens to adjust the power of said at least one lens.
However, in an analogous field of endeavor Waldern teaches the use of an adaptive lens, i.e. and adjustable power lens, in an optical system that tracks the eye (See, e.g., paragraph [0100] which explains this).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the cited optical unit of Kobayakawa to be adaptive, as taught by Waldern, for the purpose of increasing economy of design (See, e.g., paragraph [0100] of Waldern which explains this advantage among others).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-5, 7-10, and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 11, 15, and 17 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.
The following is an examiner’s reasons for indicating allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein said diffuser forms at least one window allowing said user to see said displaying unit through said optical unit and said at least one window.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein said sensing unit is configured to determine when said user recovers a predetermined visual acuity after said at least one eye of the user is stimulated by said at least one light source.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach determining an initial parameter representative of a visual acuity of a user depending on said at least one signal representative of a visual acuity of the user; stimulating at least one eye of the user with said at least one light source, wherein said step of determining a parameter representative of a visual acuity comprises determining when said user recovers a predetermined visual acuity after said at least one eye of the user is stimulated by said at least one light source, or stimulating at least one eye of the user with said at least one light source, wherein said step of determining a parameter representative of a visual acuity comprises determining the visual acuity of the user.
Regarding claim 17, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein said displaying unit comprises first and a second screens configured to respectively display at lest one first image to a first eye of the user and at least one second image to a second eye of the user.
Regarding claims 3-5, 7-10, and 18-20, these claims depend on an allowable base claim and are therefore allowable for at least the reasons stated supra.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Mitchell Oestreich whose telephone number is (571)270-7559. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-11:00 MT.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MITCHELL T OESTREICH/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872