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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/11/2023, 08/16/2023, and 08/14/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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 5, 9-12, and 20-25 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 5 recites “an artificial intelligence camera configured to detect at least one feature of the user and, based on the at least one feature of the user, cause the processor to automatically engage the linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system.” However, it is unclear what constitutes “an artificial intelligence camera.” It is unclear if any camera would read on the claimed “artificial intelligence camera” or if some additional structure is required. For the purposes of examination, any camera will be interpreted as an “artificial intelligence camera.”
Claim 9 recites “a convoluted tunnel having a series of straight segments.” However, it is unclear what constitutes a “convoluted tunnel.”
The term “convoluted” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “convoluted” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear if any tunnel having a series of straight segments would read on the claimed “convoluted tunnel” or if some additional tunnel structure is required. For the purposes of examination, any tunnel will be interpreted as a “convoluted tunnel.”
Claims 10-12 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 9 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 11 recites “an artificial intelligence camera configured to detect a position of the user relative to the visual acuity display.” However, it is unclear what constitutes “an artificial intelligence camera.” It is unclear if any camera would read on the claimed “artificial intelligence camera” or if some additional structure is required. For the purposes of examination, any camera will be interpreted as an “artificial intelligence camera.”
Claim 12 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 11 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim 20 recites that “the linear actuator is mounted on a stand-alone kiosk.” However, it is unclear what constitutes a “stand-alone kiosk” and how such a kiosk would be different from the configurations including a table-top, wall, or ceiling, or if such a stand-alone kiosk could be mounted on a wall or ceiling. For the purposes of examination, any structure meeting that of claim 1 will be interpreted as reading on the claimed “stand-alone kiosk.”
Claims 21-25 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 20 and failing to cure the deficiencies of the rejected base claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 4-5, 7-14, 20-21, 23, and 29-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Raymond et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0007934; hereinafter – “Raymond”).
Regarding claim 1, Raymond teaches a self-guided eye examination system, comprising:
an eye examination interface module (1000) mounted on a linear actuator (1400), the linear actuator configured to move the eye examination interface module along a vertical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, and 20; Paragraphs 0071-0078, 0081, 0089, and 0092), the eye examination interface module including:
a housing (1100) including at least one window (1110) on a front face of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0071-0078);
a frame (1400) inside of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 1-6, 12, and 14; Paragraphs 0071-0082 and 0089-0092); and
at least one eye examination device (1300) mounted to the frame inside of the housing and accessible from an outside of the housing at the front face of the housing through the at least one window, the at least one eye examination device configured to examine at least one aspect of a user's health (See e.g. Figs. 1-6, 12, and 14; Paragraphs 0071-0082 and 0089-0092);
at least one graphical user interface (See e.g. Figs. 18-22) configured to guide the user in operating the self-guided eye examination system without assistance from an attendant (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0011, 0034-0037, 0040-0046, 0083, 0167, 0171, and 0179-0187); and
a processor (2200, 2300) configured to cause the at least one eye examination device to examine the at least one aspect of the user's health and provide feedback to the user on the at least one graphical user interface based on at least one result of the at least one aspect of the user's health (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0035, 0040-0046, 0076-0079, and 0159).
Regarding claim 4, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the processor is configured to variably engage the linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self- guided eye examination system (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0071-0078, 0081, 0089, 0092, 0167, 0171, and 0179-0187).
Regarding claim 5, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 4, as above.
Raymond further teaches an artificial intelligence camera (1200, 4100) configured to detect at least one feature of the user and, based on the at least one feature of the user, cause the processor to automatically engage the linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4-5, 11, 14, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0075, 0081, 0092-0094, 0114, 0123-0132, 0143-0151, and 0180-0184).
Regarding claim 7, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 4, as above.
Raymond further teaches a user controlled activator accessible from an outside of the housing and coupled to the processor, the user controlled activator configured to, based on activation by the user, cause the processor to engage the linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface3module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0011, 0034-0037, 0040-0046, 0083, 0167, 0171, and 0174-0187).
Regarding claim 8, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the at least one eye examination device includes at least one of a retinal camera, an autorefractor, and a visual acuity testing device, and the at least one aspect of a user's health respectively includes at least one of an image of the user's retina, a refractive error of the user, and a visual acuity of the user (See e.g. Figs. 1-6, 12, and 14; Paragraphs 0071-0082, 0089-0092, and 0095-0100).
Regarding claim 9, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 8, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the visual acuity testing device includes: a convoluted tunnel (3000, 4000, 6000, 12000) having a series of straight segments, the convoluted tunnel having a light emitting diode or liquid crystal display (LS1, LS2, LS3, LS4, LS5, LS6, DLP, 12200) at a first end of the convoluted tunnel and a visual acuity display at a second end of the convoluted tunnel, the light emitting diode or liquid crystal display configured to emit a visual acuity symbol into the convoluted tunnel; a mirror (M1, M2, M3, M4, M5, M6, BS1, BS2, BS3, BS4) in each corner of adjoining straight segments of the convoluted tunnel, each mirror being configured to reflect the visual acuity symbol emitted by the light emitting diode or liquid crystal display such that the visual acuity symbol is reflected to the visual acuity display; wherein the visual acuity display is visually accessible from an outside of the housing of the eye examination interface module at a front face of the housing and is configured to display the visual acuity symbol emitted by the light emitting diode or liquid crystal display (See e.g. Figs. 1-4, 6, and 11-14; Paragraphs 0071-0082, 0089-0092, 0095-0100, 0113-0117, and 0145-0154).
Moreover, given that the “visual acuity testing device” is listed as one of multiple alternatives in claim 8, Examiner notes that the claims do not positively require the details of the visual acuity testing device. Thus, Raymond’s teaching of an autorefractor in, e.g., Paragraphs 0095-0100 meets the requirements of claims 8-10.
Regarding claim 10, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 9, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the convoluted tunnel forms a path between the light emitting diode or liquid crystal display and the visual acuity display having a distance in a range of 149.20 to 161.90 centimeters (See e.g. Figs. 1-4, 6, and 11-14; Paragraphs 0089, 0096, 0100, and 0105-0106).
Moreover, given that the “visual acuity testing device” is listed as one of multiple alternatives in claim 8, Examiner notes that the claims do not positively require the details of the visual acuity testing device. Thus, Raymond’s teaching of an autorefractor in, e.g., Paragraphs 0095-0100 meets the requirements of claims 8-10.
Regarding claim 11, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 9, as above.
Raymond further teaches an artificial intelligence camera (1200, 4100) configured to detect a position of the user relative to the visual acuity display, wherein the processor is configured to instruct, via the at least the graphical user interface, the user to move relative to the visual acuity display, based on the detected position of the user, to ensure that the user is positioned in a range of 38.10 to 50.80 centimeters of the visual acuity display (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4-5, 11, 14, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0075, 0081-0082, 0089-0096, 0100, 0105-0106, 0114, 0123-0132, 0143-0151, and 0180-0184).
Regarding claim 12, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 11, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the artificial intelligence camera is configured to detect a posture of the user, and wherein the processor is configured to instruct, via the graphical user interface, the user to adjust the posture based on the detected posture to ensure compliance with the visual acuity testing device (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4-5, 11, 14, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0075, 0081, 0092-0094, 0114, 0123-0132, 0143-0151, and 0180-0184).
Regarding claim 13, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the at least one eye examination device includes at least one shield (1120) for protecting at least a part of the at least one eye examination device when not in use (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0071-0073).
Regarding claim 14, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 13, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the at least one shield includes at least one bellows for covering a gap between the at least one eye examination device and a periphery of the at least one window in the housing (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0071-0073).
Regarding claim 20, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the linear actuator is mounted on a stand-alone kiosk (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0071-0078).
Regarding claim 21, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 20, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the kiosk includes: a back frame on which the linear actuator is mounted; a canopy attached to a top end of the back frame and cantilevered over the eye examination interface module; and two side walls attached to a bottom end of the back frame and extending out perpendicularly from the back frame, wherein the back frame, the canopy and the two side walls define an operating space in which the eye examination interface module resides (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0071-0078).
Regarding claim 23, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 21, as above.
Raymond further teaches that at least one of the two side walls includes an integrated storage unit (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0071-0078).
Regarding claim 29, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the at least one user interface is provided on the front face of the housing of the eye examination interface module (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0011, 0034-0037, 0040-0046, 0083, 0167, 0171, and 0179-0187).
Regarding claim 30, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the at least one user interface is provided on a mobile device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, and 18-20; Paragraphs 0011, 0034-0037, 0040-0046, 0083, 0167, 0171, 0174-0175, and 0179-0187).
Regarding claim 31, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the eye examination interface module further includes a display screen on the front face of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0011, 0034-0037, 0040-0046, 0083, 0167, 0171, and 0179-0187).
Regarding claim 32, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the eye examination interface module further includes at least one speaker (2500) on the front face of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0011, 0034-0037, 0040-0046, 0076, 0083, 0167, 0171, and 0179-0187).
Regarding claim 33, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the processor is further configured to communicate the at least one result of the at least one aspect of the user's health to a remote practitioner for assessment (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, and 18-21; Paragraphs 0035, 0040-0046, 0076-0079, 0159, 0170, and 0177-0204).
Regarding claim 34, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the processor is configured to provide feedback to the user based on the at least one result of the at least one aspect of the user's health in the form of a referral to a remote practitioner (See e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9-10, and 18-21; Paragraphs 0035, 0040-0046, 0076-0079, 0159, 0170, and 0177-0204).
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) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Zhou et al. (Chinese Pub. No. CN 110916610 A; hereinafter – “Zhou”). All citations to Zhou are directed toward the English machine translation of the Chinese document, of record from IDS filed 08/14/2024.
Regarding claim 2, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the eye examination interface module is manually movable by the user manually engaging the linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system.
However, Zhou teaches a self-service vision examination device comprising an eye examination interface module that is manually movable by the user manually engaging a linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 2-5).
Zhou teaches this manual adjustment such that it “the vision can be checked by self, and the result is printed; different visual charts can be provided for different crowds, and the accuracy of the examination can be ensured by the aid of the randomly-appearing visual chart icons; the chair can adapt to people with different heights, and the adjustment of the chair is convenient; the eye shielding plate automatically reaches a preset position to shield an inspector; the operation is simple and convenient” (P. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the manual adjustment of Zhou such that it “the vision can be checked by self, and the result is printed; different visual charts can be provided for different crowds, and the accuracy of the examination can be ensured by the aid of the randomly-appearing visual chart icons; the chair can adapt to people with different heights, and the adjustment of the chair is convenient; the eye shielding plate automatically reaches a preset position to shield an inspector; the operation is simple and convenient” (P. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the housing of the eye examination interface module includes at least one handle for manually engaging the linear actuator and manually moving the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system.
However, Zhou teaches a self-service vision examination device comprising an eye examination interface module wherein the housing of the eye examination interface module includes at least one handle for manually engaging the linear actuator and manually moving the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; P. 2-5).
Zhou teaches this manual adjustment such that it “the vision can be checked by self, and the result is printed; different visual charts can be provided for different crowds, and the accuracy of the examination can be ensured by the aid of the randomly-appearing visual chart icons; the chair can adapt to people with different heights, and the adjustment of the chair is convenient; the eye shielding plate automatically reaches a preset position to shield an inspector; the operation is simple and convenient” (P. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the manual adjustment of Zhou such that it “the vision can be checked by self, and the result is printed; different visual charts can be provided for different crowds, and the accuracy of the examination can be ensured by the aid of the randomly-appearing visual chart icons; the chair can adapt to people with different heights, and the adjustment of the chair is convenient; the eye shielding plate automatically reaches a preset position to shield an inspector; the operation is simple and convenient” (P. 2).
Claim(s) 5-6, 11-12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Assouline et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2022/0007938; hereinafter – “Assouline”).
Regarding claim 5, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 4, as above.
Raymond further teaches an artificial intelligence camera (1200, 4100) configured to detect at least one feature of the user and, based on the at least one feature of the user, cause the processor to automatically engage the linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4-5, 11, 14, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0075, 0081, 0092-0094, 0114, 0123-0132, 0143-0151, and 0180-0184).
Additionally, Assouline teaches an automated examination system comprising an artificial intelligence camera (332) configured to detect at least one feature of the user and, based on the at least one feature of the user, cause the processor to automatically engage a linear actuator to move an eye examination interface module along a vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of a self-guided eye examination system (See e.g. Figs. 1-14; Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0091-0094, 0203-0205, 0217, 0222, and 0231).
Assouline teaches this artificial intelligence camera “so as to allow the head support to be conformed and correctly positioned relative to the particular subject” (Paragraph 0029) for “automatically adjusting the subject's position for the examination and automatically position at least two examination devices” which “reduces the need for, and even eliminates, external operator intervention while providing reliable and accurate results, and hence may be considered as an autonomous examination system” (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, even if Raymond did not teach the claimed artificial intelligence camera, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the artificial intelligence camera of Assouline “so as to allow the head support to be conformed and correctly positioned relative to the particular subject” for “automatically adjusting the subject's position for the examination and automatically position at least two examination devices” which “reduces the need for, and even eliminates, external operator intervention while providing reliable and accurate results, and hence may be considered as an autonomous examination system,” as in Assouline (Paragraphs 0015 and 0029).
Regarding claim 6, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 4, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the graphical user interface includes a user input and, based on the user input, causes the processor to automatically engage the linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system (See e.g. Figs. 18-20; Paragraphs 0173-0177).
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the graphical user interface includes a user height input and, based on the user height input, causes the processor to automatically engage the linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system.
However, Assouline teaches an automated examination system comprising a graphical user interface that includes a user height input and, based on the user height input, causes the processor to automatically engage the linear actuator to move the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis to ensure proper alignment of the eye examination interface module relative to the user during operation of the self-guided eye examination system (See e.g. Figs. 9-14; Paragraphs 0032, 0044, and 0231-0234).
Assouline teaches this user height input “so as to allow the head support to be conformed and correctly positioned relative to the particular subject” (Paragraph 0029) for “automatically adjusting the subject's position for the examination and automatically position at least two examination devices” which “reduces the need for, and even eliminates, external operator intervention while providing reliable and accurate results, and hence may be considered as an autonomous examination system” (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the user height input of Assouline “so as to allow the head support to be conformed and correctly positioned relative to the particular subject” for “automatically adjusting the subject's position for the examination and automatically position at least two examination devices” which “reduces the need for, and even eliminates, external operator intervention while providing reliable and accurate results, and hence may be considered as an autonomous examination system,” as in Assouline (Paragraphs 0015 and 0029).
Regarding claim 11, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 9, as above.
Raymond further teaches an artificial intelligence camera (1200, 4100) configured to detect a position of the user relative to the visual acuity display, wherein the processor is configured to instruct, via the at least the graphical user interface, the user to move relative to the visual acuity display, based on the detected position of the user, to ensure that the user is positioned in a range of 38.10 to 50.80 centimeters of the visual acuity display (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4-5, 11, 14, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0075, 0081-0082, 0089-0096, 0100, 0105-0106, 0114, 0123-0132, 0143-0151, and 0180-0184).
Additionally, Assouline teaches an automated examination system comprising an artificial intelligence camera (332) configured to detect a position of the user relative to the visual acuity display, wherein the processor is configured to instruct, via the at least the graphical user interface, the user to move relative to the visual acuity display, based on the detected position of the user, to ensure that the user is positioned in a range of 38.10 to 50.80 centimeters of the visual acuity display (See e.g. Figs. 1-14; Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0091-0094, 0203-0205, 0217, 0222, and 0231).
Assouline teaches this artificial intelligence camera “so as to allow the head support to be conformed and correctly positioned relative to the particular subject” (Paragraph 0029) for “automatically adjusting the subject's position for the examination and automatically position at least two examination devices” which “reduces the need for, and even eliminates, external operator intervention while providing reliable and accurate results, and hence may be considered as an autonomous examination system” (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, even if Raymond did not teach the claimed artificial intelligence camera, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the artificial intelligence camera of Assouline “so as to allow the head support to be conformed and correctly positioned relative to the particular subject” for “automatically adjusting the subject's position for the examination and automatically position at least two examination devices” which “reduces the need for, and even eliminates, external operator intervention while providing reliable and accurate results, and hence may be considered as an autonomous examination system,” as in Assouline (Paragraphs 0015 and 0029).
Regarding claim 12, Raymond in view of Assouline teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 11, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the artificial intelligence camera is configured to detect a posture of the user, and wherein the processor is configured to instruct, via the graphical user interface, the user to adjust the posture based on the detected posture to ensure compliance with the visual acuity testing device (See e.g. Figs. 1, 4-5, 11, 14, 18, and 20; Paragraphs 0075, 0081, 0092-0094, 0114, 0123-0132, 0143-0151, and 0180-0184).
Assouline further teaches that the artificial intelligence camera is configured to detect a posture of the user, and wherein the processor is configured to instruct, via the graphical user interface, the user to adjust the posture based on the detected posture to ensure compliance with the visual acuity testing device (See e.g. Figs. 1-14; Paragraphs 0030-0031, 0091-0094, 0203-0205, 0217, 0222, and 0231).
Regarding claim 18, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the housing of the eye examination interface module includes a bumper on a bottom face of the housing.
However, Assouline teaches an automated examination system comprising an eye examination interface module with a housing (122) that includes a bumper (180) on a bottom face of the housing (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0216-0221).
Assouline teaches this bumper for “automatically adjusting the subject's position for the examination and automatically position at least two examination devices” which “reduces the need for, and even eliminates, external operator intervention while providing reliable and accurate results, and hence may be considered as an autonomous examination system” (Paragraph 0015).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the bumper of Assouline for “automatically adjusting the subject's position for the examination and automatically position at least two examination devices” which “reduces the need for, and even eliminates, external operator intervention while providing reliable and accurate results, and hence may be considered as an autonomous examination system,” as in Assouline (Paragraph 0015).
Regarding claim 19, Raymond in view of Assouline teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 18, as above.
Assouline further teaches that the bumper includes a contact sensor configured to detect contact of the bumper with an object (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraphs 0216-0221).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Mayer, III et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2023/0115129; hereinafter – “Mayer”).
Regarding claim 15, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 13, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one shield includes a retractable shield movable between a retracted position and a shielding position.
However, Mayer teaches restroom door assembly comprising at least one shield (21, 22) including a retractable shield movable between a retracted position and a shielding position (See e.g. Figs. 1 and 3-11; Paragraph 0070).
Mayer teaches this retractable shield to “provide significantly more usable space” and as it “provides a more sanitary operation, as no user contact with the door is necessary for operation” (Paragraph 0097).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the retractable shield of Mayer to “provide significantly more usable space” and as it “provides a more sanitary operation, as no user contact with the door is necessary for operation,” as in Mayer (Paragraph 0097), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 16, Raymond in view of Mayer teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 15, as above.
Mayer further teaches that the retractable shield includes: a motor; at least one gear rotatable by the motor; a flexible door having a series of gear holes in which the at least one gear is configured to engage the flexible door; wherein when the motor rotates the at least on gear in a first direction, the at least one gear is configured to engage the series of gear holes in the flexible door and coil the flexible door around the at least one gear to move the retractable shield from the shielding position to the retracted position; and wherein when the motor rotates the at least one gear in a second direction, opposite the first direction, the at least one gear is configured to engage the series of gear holes in the flexible door and uncoil the flexible door from around the at least one gear to move the retractable door from the retracted position to the shielding position (See e.g. Figs. 1-8; Paragraph 0074).
Mayer teaches this retractable shield to “provide significantly more usable space” and as it “provides a more sanitary operation, as no user contact with the door is necessary for operation” (Paragraph 0097).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the retractable shield of Mayer to “provide significantly more usable space” and as it “provides a more sanitary operation, as no user contact with the door is necessary for operation,” as in Mayer (Paragraph 0097), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Claim(s) 15 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Kobayashi et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0221943; hereinafter – “Kobayashi”).
Regarding claim 15, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 13, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the at least one shield includes a retractable shield movable between a retracted position and a shielding position.
However, Kobayashi teaches a subjective optometry apparatus comprising at least one shield (4, 40) for protecting at least a part of at least one eye examination device when not in user wherein the at least one shield includes a retractable shield (4) movable between a retracted position and a shielding position (See e.g. Figs. 1-3 and 5; Paragraphs 0030, 0051-0066, 0067, and 0071-0073).
Kobayashi teaches this retractable shield “to provide a subjective optometry apparatus capable of performing a highly accurate subjective examination even in a case where the subjective optometry apparatus has achieved space saving” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the retractable shield of Kobayashi “to provide a subjective optometry apparatus capable of performing a highly accurate subjective examination even in a case where the subjective optometry apparatus has achieved space saving,” as in Kobayashi (Paragraph 0005), and since it has been held that the provision of adjustability, where needed, involves only routine skill in the art. In re Stevens, 212 F.2d 197, 101 USPQ 284 (CCPA 1954).
Regarding claim 17, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the housing of the eye examination interface module includes a proximity sensor on a bottom face of the housing, the proximity sensor being configured to detect a presence of an object within a predetermined distance from the bottom face of the housing and cause the processor to prevent the linear actuator from moving the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis into contact with the object.
However, Kobayashi teaches a subjective optometry apparatus comprising an eye examination interface module in a housing wherein the housing of the eye examination interface module includes a proximity sensor on a bottom face of the housing, the proximity sensor being configured to detect a presence of an object within a predetermined distance from the bottom face of the housing and cause the processor to prevent the linear actuator from moving the eye examination interface module along the vertical axis into contact with the object (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0073 and 0096).
Kobayashi teaches this proximity sensor “to provide a subjective optometry apparatus capable of performing a highly accurate subjective examination even in a case where the subjective optometry apparatus has achieved space saving” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the proximity sensor of Kobayashi “to provide a subjective optometry apparatus capable of performing a highly accurate subjective examination even in a case where the subjective optometry apparatus has achieved space saving,” as in Kobayashi (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 18, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the housing of the eye examination interface module includes a bumper on a bottom face of the housing.
However, Kobayashi teaches a subjective optometry apparatus comprising an eye examination interface module in a housing wherein the housing of the eye examination interface module includes a bumper on a bottom face of the housing (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0071-0073).
Kobayashi teaches this bumper “to provide a subjective optometry apparatus capable of performing a highly accurate subjective examination even in a case where the subjective optometry apparatus has achieved space saving” (Paragraph 0005).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the bumper of Kobayashi “to provide a subjective optometry apparatus capable of performing a highly accurate subjective examination even in a case where the subjective optometry apparatus has achieved space saving,” as in Kobayashi (Paragraph 0005).
Regarding claim 19, Raymond in view of Kobayashi teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 18, as above.
Kobayashi further teaches that the bumper includes a contact sensor configured to detect contact of the bumper with an object (See e.g. Figs. 1-3; Paragraphs 0071-0073).
Claim(s) 21-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Cashman et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,074,148; hereinafter – “Cashman”).
Regarding claim 21, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 20, as above.
Raymond further teaches that the kiosk includes: a back frame on which the linear actuator is mounted; a canopy attached to a top end of the back frame and cantilevered over the eye examination interface module; and two side walls attached to a bottom end of the back frame and extending out perpendicularly from the back frame, wherein the back frame, the canopy and the two side walls define an operating space in which the eye examination interface module resides (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0071-0078).
Additionally, Cashman teaches a medical kiosk comprising a back frame on which the linear actuator is mounted; a canopy attached to a top end of the back frame and cantilevered over the eye examination interface module; and two side walls attached to a bottom end of the back frame and extending out perpendicularly from the back frame, wherein the back frame, the canopy and the two side walls define an operating space in which the eye examination interface module resides (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; C. 59, L. 28 – C. 62, L. 31).
Cashman teaches this kiosk structure “for providing medical services in a more convenient, desirable, timely and cost effective manner” (C. 2, L. 12-15).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the kiosk structure of Cashman “for providing medical services in a more convenient, desirable, timely and cost effective manner,” as in Cashman (C. 2, L. 12-15).
Regarding claim 22, Raymond in view of Cashman teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 21, as above.
Cashman further teaches that at least one of the two side walls includes at least one handrail (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; C. 4, L. 19-67; C. 58, L. 39 – C. 59, L. 9).
Regarding claim 23, Raymond in view of Cashman teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 21, as above.
Raymond further teaches that at least one of the two side walls includes an integrated storage unit (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0071-0078).
Additionally, Cashman further teaches that at least one of the two side walls includes an integrated storage unit (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; C. 59, L. 28-48).
Regarding claim 24, Raymond in view of Cashman teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 23, as above.
Cashman further teaches that the integrated storage unit includes at least one of a sanitizing wipe dispenser and a trash can (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; C. 32, L. 57 – C. 34, L. 41; C. 59, L. 28-48; C. 66, L. 28 – C. 67, L. 10).
Regarding claim 25, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 20, as above.
Cashman further teaches a plurality of casters on a bottom of the back frame and the two side walls (See e.g. Figs. 1-9; C. 40, L. 19-45).
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Katz et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0078134; hereinafter – “Katz”).
Regarding claim 25, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 20, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose a plurality of casters on a bottom of the back frame and the two side walls.
However, Katz teaches an eye examination kiosk system comprising a back frame and two side walls with a plurality of casters on a bottom of the back frame and the two side walls (See e.g. Figs. 1, 3-4, and 8; Paragraphs 0036-0040 and 0043).
Katz teaches these casters to “provide rolling engagement between the floor surface and the eye examination kiosk, allowing the kiosk of the invention to be rolled into a desired location and orientation” (Paragraph 0036).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the Casters of Katz to “provide rolling engagement between the floor surface and the eye examination kiosk, allowing the kiosk of the invention to be rolled into a desired location and orientation,” as in Katz (Paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 26, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the linear actuator is mounted on a tabletop stand.
However, Katz teaches an eye examination kiosk system comprising a linear actuator mounted on a tabletop stand (See e.g. Figs. 1-8; Paragraphs 0036 and 0041-0046).
Katz teaches this tabletop stand “for reducing the time required for eye examination, allowing for the integrating of ophthalmologic examination into the activities and routines of daily life, and providing quick and easy follow up for future ophthalmologic care and treatment” (Paragraph 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the tabletop stand of Katz “for reducing the time required for eye examination, allowing for the integrating of ophthalmologic examination into the activities and routines of daily life, and providing quick and easy follow up for future ophthalmologic care and treatment,” as in Katz (Paragraph 0008).
Claim(s) 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raymond in view of Dudee (U.S. Patent No. 7,819,528).
Regarding claim 26, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the linear actuator is mounted on a tabletop stand.
However, Dudee teaches a mounting system for slit lamp biomicroscope assembly comprising a linear actuator mounted on a tabletop stand (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 5, L. 47-50).
Dudee teaches this tabletop stand “so that it can be supported and moved to proper position for examining the patient and swung away to egress of the patient or storage” (C. 5, L. 47-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the tabletop stand of Dudee “so that it can be supported and moved to proper position for examining the patient and swung away to egress of the patient or storage,” as in Dudee (C. 5, L. 47-50).
Regarding claim 27, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the linear actuator is mounted to a ceiling.
However, Dudee teaches a mounting system for slit lamp biomicroscope assembly comprising a linear actuator mounted to a ceiling (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 5, L. 47-50).
Dudee teaches this ceiling mount “so that it can be supported and moved to proper position for examining the patient and swung away to egress of the patient or storage” (C. 5, L. 47-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the ceiling mount of Dudee “so that it can be supported and moved to proper position for examining the patient and swung away to egress of the patient or storage,” as in Dudee (C. 5, L. 47-50).
Regarding claim 28, Raymond teaches the self-guided eye examination system according to claim 1, as above.
Raymond fails to explicitly disclose that the linear actuator is mounted to a wall.
However, Dudee teaches a mounting system for slit lamp biomicroscope assembly comprising a linear actuator mounted to a wall (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; C. 5, L. 47-50).
Dudee teaches this wall mount “so that it can be supported and moved to proper position for examining the patient and swung away to egress of the patient or storage” (C. 5, L. 47-50).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Raymond with the wall mount of Dudee “so that it can be supported and moved to proper position for examining the patient and swung away to egress of the patient or storage,” as in Dudee (C. 5, L. 47-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Parel et al. (U.S. PG-Pub Nos. 2022/0142467 and 2022/0071485) teach methods and systems for retrofitting a manual ophthalmic device for remote operation.
Agrawal (PCT Pub No. WO 2020/067994) teaches a system and method for imaging a body part for assessment having a similar adjustable height structure.
Berini et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,256,719) teaches a multi-biometric enrollment kiosk having a similar height adjustment structure.
Bakar et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2008/0189173) teaches a vision center kiosk having an adjustable height.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896