Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/294,632

EYE TESTING DEVICE

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Feb 02, 2024
Examiner
ALEXANDER, WILLIAM R
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Heads Stockholm AB
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
88%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 2m
To Grant
95%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 88% — above average
88%
Career Allow Rate
765 granted / 867 resolved
+20.2% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.5%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 2m
Avg Prosecution
31 currently pending
Career history
898
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
46.7%
+6.7% vs TC avg
§102
34.4%
-5.6% vs TC avg
§112
12.9%
-27.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 867 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/12/2025 and 7/14/2025 were considered by the examiner. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2, the phrase “40 cd/m2” is assumed to be a typographical error. Examiner assumes that the phrase should have been written “40 cd/[[m2]]m2”. 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, 2, 3, 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jackson et al. (WO 2020/061546, of record). Regarding Claim 1, Jackson discloses a device for providing an eye metric (see reference number 100 in fig. 1A and par. 149, lines 1-6), the device comprising a display unit (fig. 2A in combination with par. 179, lines 1-6, as well as par. 185, lines 1-4, of the description, disclose, that the light source S can be a liquid crystal display), producing a visual stimulus to an eye (see par. 180, light source S can be configured to generate stimulus light, par. 183, lines 3-5, and par. 184, lines 3-13, par. 185, lines 3-4), a feedback unit measuring a response to the stimulus (see reference number 460 in fig. 4A-4B and par. 253, lines 1-8, par. 254, lines 1-10, feedback system, par. 51, lines 1-7, par. 69, lines 1-8) and an analysing unit (see reference number 310, a processor, in fig. 3 and par. 217, lines 3-6, par. 218, lines 1-10, par. 219, lines 1-5, par. 220, lines 1-9, par. 221, lines 1-11, in combination with par. 256-260), outputting a metric result (see par. 81, line 9, scotopic visual field test, par. 181, lines 1-12, and par. 276, lines 1-16, par. 295, the subject-response can be coupled with the response analyzer, lines 1-10), characterized by the device being configured to produce a recurring bleaching impulse together with the stimulus (see par. 181, lines 1-16, par. 182, lines 1-3, par. 183-184) wherein the bleaching impulse is repeated with a frequency greater than 0.3 Hz (see par. 182, lines 1-4, stimulating the subject’s eye every second would be 1 Hz and one stimulate every 2 seconds would be 0.5 Hz, thus the condition is met). Regarding Claim 2, Jackson discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the feedback unit comprises an eye-tracking unit, measuring the eye's movements in response to said stimulus (eye tracking, par. 191, 192, 299, and 300). Regarding Claim 3, Jackson discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the feedback unit comprises a manual control, recording a tested person's response to said stimulus (par. 254, lines 1-10, subject mode). Regarding Claim 4, Jackson discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the display unit is configured to produce a moving stimulus with a decreasing visibility parameter, the eye-tracking unit is configured to detect the eye following and subsequently loosing visual contact with the stimulus, and the analysing unit is configured to provide a metric result based on the visibility parameter at the time when loss of visual contact was detected (par. 181, 191, 192, 300, and 301). Regarding Claim 6, Jackson discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the visibility parameter is a parameter in the group comprising size, grey contrast, colour contrast brightness (par. 276, contrast sensitivity and color vision), and movement velocity and jump size (par. 276, motion perception). Regarding Claim 11, Jackson discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the bleaching impulse is produced by the display device (par. 179 and par. 185, the light source S can be a liquid crystal display (LCD)). Regarding Claim 12, Jackson discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the bleaching impulse is produced by a light source separate from the display device (par. 179 and par. 185, the light source S can be a LED). Regarding Claim 13, Jackson discloses as is set forth above and further discloses wherein the bleaching impulse is repeated with a frequency in the range than 0.5-20 Hz (see par. 182, lines 1-4, stimulating the subject’s eye every second would be 1 Hz and one stimulate every 2 seconds would be 0.5 Hz, thus the condition is met). Regarding Claim 14, Jackson discloses a method (par. 144, line 1) for providing an eye metric (see reference number 100 in fig. 1A and par. 149, lines 1-6) in a device comprising a display unit (fig. 2A in combination with par. 179, lines 1-6, as well as par. 185, lines 1-4, of the description, disclose, that the light source S can be a liquid crystal display), producing a visual stimulus to an eye (see par. 180, light source S can be configured to generate stimulus light, par. 183, lines 3-5, and par. 184, lines 3-13, par. 185, lines 3-4), a feedback unit measuring a response to the stimulus (see reference number 460 in fig. 4A-4B and par. 253, lines 1-8, par. 254, lines 1-10, feedback system, par. 51, lines 1-7, par. 69, lines 1-8), and an analysing unit (see reference number 310, a processor, in fig. 3 and par. 217, lines 3-6, par. 218, lines 1-10, par. 219, lines 1-5, par. 220, lines 1-9, par. 221, lines 1-11, in combination with par. 256-260), outputting a metric result (see par. 81, line 9, scotopic visual field test, par. 181, lines 1-12, and par. 276, lines 1-16, par. 295, the subject-response can be coupled with the response analyzer, lines 1-10), characterized by a recurring bleaching impulse is produced together with the stimulus (see par. 181, lines 1-16, par. 182, lines 1-3, par. 183-184) wherein the bleaching impulse is repeated with a frequency greater than 0.3 Hz (see par. 182, lines 1-4, stimulating the subject’s eye every second would be 1 Hz and one stimulate every 2 seconds would be 0.5 Hz, thus the condition is met). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 7, and 8-10 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 a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103. Specifically, with respect to claim 5, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of a device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the display unit is configured to produce a stimulus that carries out a sequence of jumps, the eye-tracking unit is configured to detect whether the eye is capable of following the stimulus, and the analysing unit is configured to provide a metric result based on characteristics of the symbol and/or the jump at the time in the sequence when loss of visual contact was detected. Specifically, with respect to claim 7, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of a device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the display unit is configured to produce a moving stimulus, the frequency with which the bleaching impulse is repeated increases, the eye-tracking unit is configured to detect the eye following and subsequently loosing visual contact with the stimulus, and the analysing unit is configured to provide a metric result based on the bleaching frequency at the time when loss of visual contact was detected. Specifically, with respect to claim 8, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of a device including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the bleaching impulse exceeds 40 cd/m2 at the location of the eye. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Jackson et al. (US 2020/0093361), Jackson et al. (US 7,494,222), Jackson et al. (US 2007/0121071), Edwards et al. (US 2021/0307601), Edwards et al. (US 2020/0352434), Kelly (US 2020/0221945), Todd (US 2019/0269322), Lichtenauer et al. (US 10,542,882), and Lictenauer et al. (US 2017/0325676) are cited to show similar devices and methods. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 02, 2024
Application Filed
Jan 01, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599301
SYSTEM FOR CONDUCTING EYE EXAMINATIONS FOR VISUAL ACUITY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12591116
OPTICAL LENS, OPTICAL MODULE, AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12585142
SPECTACLE LENS DESIGN, METHOD OF MANUFACTURING A SPECTACLE LENS AND METHOD OF PROVIDING A SPECTACLE LENS FOR AT LEAST RETARDING MYOPIA PROGRESSION
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12578536
BRAGG GRATINGS FOR AN AUGMENTED REALITY DISPLAY SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12571991
LENS MODULE AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
88%
Grant Probability
95%
With Interview (+6.5%)
2y 2m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 867 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month