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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the issue of “at a location midway between”, Examiner is not persuaded. Applicant attempts to provide clarity by using additional subjective language “proceeds to the vicinity” of a central location between/among targets. Applicant’s remarks appear to exemplify the issue at hand. Applicant is subjectively deciding what is, or is not, within a vicinity of a central location between the targets.
Applicant’s specification and claims have not provided an objective way to determine what does or does not qualify as a location midway (in some vicinity) among the targets. If those of ordinary skill in the art consider Applicant’s remarks, then when two targets are simultaneously displayed, the targets themselves are also in some vicinity of a central location between the targets. Thus a line of sight at a target must also be at location midway between since the target itself is within “a vicinity” of a central location or region at a center of the targets. It is unlikely Applicant intends such a geometry, but the language of the claim and the indefiniteness of the disclosure make such interpretation possible, especially given the subjective nature of what is a vicinity and what is central location.
The metes and bounds remain unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art fail to understand what is, or is not, included by a line of sight at a location midway among/between the points.
Applicant’s amendments have not resolved the issue of the plurality versus singular targets. Specifically, the claim recites “a visual recognition determination unit that carries out determination as to whether or not the user has visually recognized the target based on the line of sight information and position of the target” and claim 1 also recites “the multiple target testing unit causes two of the plurality of targets to be simultaneously displayed”. The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand determining the visual recognition of “the target” when two targets are simultaneously presented.
Applicant’s remarks have not resolved the angular distance issue. As previously discussed, the line of sight is variable, thus how to determine the “angular distance” being equidistant from the variable location is unclear. Claim 1 explicitly states “a characteristic testing unit…based on movement of the line of sight”. Thus the claimed “angular distance” is based on an arbitrarily defined line of sight location. As per MPEP 2173.05(b).II - A claim may be rendered indefinite when a limitation of the claim is defined by reference to an object and the relationship between the limitation and the object is not sufficiently defined. That is, where the elements of a claim have two or more plausible constructions such that the examiner cannot readily ascertain positional relationship of the elements, the claim may be rendered indefinite. See, e.g., Ex parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 2008).
While Applicant points to FIG. 8, Applicant appears to suggest the line of sight is also the origin, but the line of sight is moving so the origin of Figures 8 or 9 doesn’t make sense in the context of the claim whereby the line of sight moves.
Another issue raised with the language is the use of “angular distance”. Those of ordinary skill in the art (e.g. those with grade school or college geometry), would understand “angular distance” to have units of degrees1 (or radians). Applicant’s remarks suggest the term is a linear distance (e.g. the target being some 2.5 dots away), thereby creating further confusion. Is Applicant’s “angular distance” supposed to be a linear distance from the origin? As stated by Examiner in the Office Action mailed August 20, 2025, the angular distance of points is mathematically unclear. Even within Applicant’s Figures 8 and 9, the 90o angle is based on the lines, not on the points themselves.
Furthermore, Applicant points to Figures 8 and 9 and suggests2 in Figure 9 the angular distances are not equidistant. This creates additional confusion because angularly, the targets are still 90o apart as depicted.
The issue remains. It is unclear what is meant by the “angular distance” in light of Applicant’s specification, claims, and remarks.
Regarding the art of Donaldson, Applicant’s continued issue with what is or is not captured by the angular distance equivalence fails to overcome the art of Donaldson. As pointed out by Examiner, as the user move their eyes from the simultaneously displayed targets (e.g. T1, T2), such as for example the line connecting T1 and T2, the line of sight necessarily moves to a location whereby T1 and T2 are equidistant from the line of sight. Here’s a picture:
PNG
media_image1.png
432
830
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “when at least three of the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed” (claim 11) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed November 18, 2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Applicant has not provided copies of any of NPL documents #1, 2, 3.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) a line of sight detecting unit that detects…in claims 1, 11, 12
b) a target display unit that causes…in claims 1, 11, 12
c) a visual recognition determination unit that carries…in claims 1, 11, 12
d) a characteristic testing unit that controls…in claims 1, 11, 12.
e) a multiple target testing unit that carries out…in claim 1
f) a visibility determination unit that…in claim 2, 3
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-3, 7-9, 11-12 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.
As to claims 1, 12, the claim recites “a visual recognition unit that carries out determination as to whether or not the user has visually recognized the target…”, “the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed on the display” which is unclear as to what is the visual recognition of “the target” when two targets are simultaneously displayed (MPEP 2173; 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “two of the targets…at locations equidistant in terms of angular distance from a location of the line of sight” which relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the user’s line of sight is not a fixed location and is arbitrarily located as the user moves their eyes. Thus any angular distance is relative to an arbitrary line of sight location. The metes and bounds are unclear because the locations of the targets are relative to an arbitrary/relative object (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
Additionally, such geometry is not understood. The language proposes to create an angle between points, however angles are a measure between lines and/or planes3. As discussed above the angular distance should be a measure in degrees (or radians), however Applicant remarks considers the angular distance to be a linear distance measured in dots (e.g. 2.5 dots as per Figure 8). The metes and bounds are unclear since Applicant appear to be using the terminology inconsistent with what those of ordinary skill understand (MPEP 2173.05(a)).
For purposes of examination, Examiner will consider the art such that so long as two targets are displayed, and the user has a line of sight, such equidistant angular distance is necessarily met as the user moves the line of sight.
Claims 2-3, 7-9 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “when the target has been displayed” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, claim 1 recites two targets simultaneously displayed, thus it is unclear what is “the target”.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “at a location midway between” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “midway” 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. Specifically, it is unclear what does or does not constitute midway between the points. As pointed out by Applicant, such location is to be considered at a vicinity of the central location, however such interpretation causes confusion as to what is, or is not, a vicinity of a central location. As pointed out by Examiner above, such language/description would include the targets themselves since each target is necessarily in a vicinity of a central location of the targets.
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art determines if the target(s) were visible, such limitations will be considered met.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “when the target has been displayed” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, claim 1 recites two targets simultaneously displayed, thus it is unclear what is “the target”.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “at a location midway between” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “midway” 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. Specifically, it is unclear what does or does not constitute midway between the points. As pointed out by Applicant, such location is to be considered at a vicinity of the central location, however such interpretation causes confusion as to what is, or is not, a vicinity of a central location. As pointed out by Examiner above, such language/description would include the targets themselves since each target is necessarily in a vicinity of a central location of the targets.
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art determines if the target(s) were visible, such limitations will be considered met.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “a visual recognition determination unit that carries out determination as to whether or not the user has visually recognized the target”, “at least three of the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed” which is unclear as to what is the visual recognition of “the target” when three targets are simultaneously displayed (MPEP 2173; 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 12, the claim recites (line 18) “when the target” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, the claim simultaneously displays a plurality of targets, thus it is unclear what is “the target”.
As to claim 12, the claim recites “at a location midway among” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “midway” 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. Specifically, it is unclear what does or does not constitute midway between the points. As pointed out by Applicant, such location is to be considered at a vicinity of the central location, however such interpretation causes confusion as to what is, or is not, a vicinity of a central location. As pointed out by Examiner above, such language/description would include the targets themselves since each target is necessarily in a vicinity of a central location of the targets. For example, Figure 8 shows two targets (black dots) which are in the vicinity of the a central location (e.g. the origin). Thus each target is itself “at a location midway among…”.
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art determines if the target(s) were visible, such limitations will be considered met.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Donaldson (US 6,367,932; of record).
As to claim 1, Donaldson teaches a characteristic testing system that causes a target to be displayed at a display (Donaldson Fig. 1; col. 1:35-37) and that carries out testing a characteristic of a user based on movement of a line of sight of the user (Donaldson Fig. 1 - T1, T2; col. 1:37-38; col. 2:23-28), the characteristic testing system comprising
a line of sight detection unit that detects the line of sight of the user and that outputs line of sight information pertaining to a direction of the line of sight (Donaldson Fig. 1 - 4; col. 4:1-2; col. 2:40-41; col. 2:60-64);
a target display unit that causes the target to be displayed at the display (Donaldson Fig. 1 - 2, 3; col. 3:20-29);
a visual recognition determination unit that carries out a determination as to whether or not the user has visually recognized the target based on the line of sight information and position information of the target (Donaldson col. 1:36-44; col.1:55-66);
a characteristic testing unit that controls the target display unit and carries out testing with respect to the characteristic of the user based on movement of the line of sight when the target is displayed (Donaldson Fig. 2; col. 4:8-20; Fig. 3; col. 4:33-40);
wherein the target is one among a plurality of targets (Donaldson Fig. 1 - T1, T2; Fig. 2 - T1…T7), and the characteristic testing unit comprises a multiple target testing unit that carries out testing with respect to the characteristic of the user when the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed at the display (Donaldson col. 4:10-20; col. 2:37-40; col. 1:37-45);
wherein the target testing unit causes two of the plurality of targets to be simultaneously displayed at locations equidistant in terms of angular distance from a location of the line of sight (Donaldson Fig. 1 - T1, T2; Fig. 2 - T1, T2…T7; col. 4:8-30 - as discussed, targets are simultaneously displayed whereby the user, when directing their gaze to the new target, necessarily create a geometry whereby the two targets are at locations equidistance in terms of angular distance from a location of the line of sight).
PNG
media_image2.png
437
826
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2 (as understood), Donaldson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Donaldson further teaches the characteristic testing unit comprises a visibility determination unit that, when the targets has been displayed at a location not in the line of sight, determines whether or not the target was visible to the user (Donaldson col. 1:37-45; col. 4:8-20; claim 6; claim 7);
wherein the visibility determination unit is such that, when the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed pursuant to testing by the multiple target testing unit, determination is made that all of the plurality of targets are visible if the line of sight proceeds to and stops at a location midway among the plurality of targets (Donaldson Figs. 1-3 - T1, T2…T7; col. 4:10-20 - Once it is confirmed that the observer is looking directly at target T1, (e.g. using data from the eye tracker and the display), then target T1 becomes a fixation target. Target T2 is then provided on the screen as a visual field target and if the observer is aware of target T2, he is encouraged to direct his gaze to it, whereby it then becomes the new fixation target. At this point target T1 disappears and a new target, target T3 appears and the process continues for targets T4 to T7).
As to claim 3 (as understood), Donaldson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Donaldson further teaches the characteristic testing unit comprises a visibility determination unit that, when the target has been displayed at a location not in the line of sight, determines whether or not the target was visible to the user (Donaldson col. 1:37-45; col. 4:8-20; claim 6; claim 7);
wherein the visibility determination unit is such that, when the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed pursuant to testing by the multiple target testing unit, determination is made that all of the plurality of targets are nonvisible if the line of sight proceeds to and stops at a location other than an initial position, any of the targets, or midway among the plurality of targets (Donaldson Figs. 1-3 - T1, T2…T7; col. 4:20-30 - If a visual field target is not seen, it is either moved under computer control to where it is seen and the position recorded or other targets are displayed one at a time until one is seen and the process continues further…Also with constant tracking of the eye, the computer will only display the next target while the eye was still directed at the existing target reducing the risk of false positives and false negatives).
As to claim 12 (as understood), Donaldson teaches a characteristic testing system that causes a target to be displayed at a display (Donaldson Fig. 1; col. 1:35-37) and that carries out testing a characteristic of a user based on movement of a line of sight of the user (Donaldson Fig. 1 - T1, T2; col. 1:37-38; col. 2:23-28), the characteristic testing system comprising
a line of sight detection unit that detects the line of sight of the user and that outputs line of sight information pertaining to a direction of the line of sight (Donaldson Fig. 1 - 4; col. 4:1-2; col. 2:40-41; col. 2:60-64);
a target display unit that causes the target to be displayed at the display (Donaldson Fig. 1 - 2, 3; col. 3:20-29);
a visual recognition determination unit that carries out a determination as to whether or not the user has visually recognized the target based on the line of sight information and position information of the target (Donaldson col. 1:36-44; col.1:55-66);
a characteristic testing unit that controls the target display unit and carries out testing with respect to the characteristic of the user based on movement of the line of sight when the target is display (Donaldson Fig. 2; col. 4:8-20; Fig. 3; col. 4:33-40);
wherein the target is one among a plurality of targets (Donaldson Fig. 1 - T1, T2; Fig. 2 - T1…T7), and the characteristic testing unit comprises a multiple target testing unit that carries out testing with respect to the characteristic of the user when the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed at the display (Donaldson col. 4:10-20; col. 2:37-40; col. 1:37-45);
the characteristic testing unit comprises a visibility determination unit that, when the target has been displayed at a location not in the line of sight, determines whether or not the target was visible to the user (Donaldson col. 1:37-45; col. 4:8-20; claim 6; claim 7); and
wherein the visibility determination unit is such that, when the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed pursuant to testing by the multiple target testing unit, determination is made that all of the plurality of targets are visible if the line of sight proceeds to and stops at a location midway among the plurality of targets (Donaldson Figs. 1-3 - T1, T2…T7; col. 4:10-20 - Once it is confirmed that the observer is looking directly at target T1, (e.g. using data from the eye tracker and the display), then target T1 becomes a fixation target. Target T2 is then provided on the screen as a visual field target and if the observer is aware of target T2, he is encouraged to direct his gaze to it, whereby it then becomes the new fixation target. At this point target T1 disappears and a new target, target T3 appears and the process continues for targets T4 to T7).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson as applied to claims 1, 2, 3 above, and further in view of Solomon (US 5,880,812; of record).
As to claims 7-9, Donaldson teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1, 2, 3, but doesn’t specify the plurality of targets to be displayed in different colors. In the same field of endeavor Solomon teaches a visual field test having target stimuli with different colors (Solomon col. 1:5-10; col. 4:40-45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the targets with different colors since, as taught by Solomon, different colors allow for increasing the assessment parameters (Solomon col. 4:40-45).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson and Rorabaugh et al. (US 5,035,500 - Rorabaugh).
As to claim 11 (as understood), Donaldson teaches a characteristic testing system that causes a target to be displayed at a display (Donaldson Fig. 1; col. 1:35-37) and that carries out testing a characteristic of a user based on movement of a line of sight of the user (Donaldson Fig. 1 - T1, T2; col. 1:37-38; col. 2:23-28), the characteristic testing system comprising
a line of sight detection unit that detects the line of sight of the user and that outputs line of sight information pertaining to a direction of the line of sight (Donaldson Fig. 1 - 4; col. 4:1-2; col. 2:40-41; col. 2:60-64);
a target display unit that causes the target to be displayed at the display (Donaldson Fig. 1 - 2, 3; col. 3:20-29);
a visual recognition determination unit that carries out a determination as to whether or not the user has visually recognized the target based on the line of sight information and position information of the target (Donaldson col. 1:36-44; col.1:55-66);
a characteristic testing unit that controls the target display unit and carries out testing with respect to the characteristic of the user based on movement of the line of sight when the target is displayed (Donaldson Fig. 2; col. 4:8-20; Fig. 3; col. 4:33-40);
wherein the target is one among a plurality of targets (Donaldson Fig. 1 - T1, T2; Fig. 2 - T1…T7), and the characteristic testing unit comprises a multiple target testing unit that carries out testing with respect to the characteristic of the user (Donaldson col. 4:10-20; col. 2:37-40; col. 1:37-45).
Donaldson doesn’t specify at least three of the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed.
In the same field of endeavor Rorabaugh teaches a characteristic testing system with a target presenting display (Rorabaugh Fig. 5a; col. 30:1-16), the target displaying and testing is carried out when at least three of the plurality of targets are simultaneously displayed at the display (Rorabaugh Fig. 11d; Fig. 11f; col. 16:31-60; col. 26:15-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide at least three simultaneous targets since, as taught by Rorabaugh, such multiple targets are well known in the art for testing the visual field at multiple points (e.g. 4) for a particular line of sight (fixation) location (Rorabaugh Fig. 11d; Fig. 11f; col. 16:31-60; col. 26:15-29).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Goseki et al. (Bilateral Concurrent Eye Examination with a Head-Mounted Perimeter for Diagnosing Functional Visual Loss)4 is cited as related to Applicant’s Goseki et al. citation (NPL #4 of the IDS filed Nov. 18, 2025).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 December 31, 2025
1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_distance
2 Remarks Nov. 18, 2025, page 14
3 https://mathworld.wolfram.com/Angle.html
4 Goseki T, Ishikawa H, Shoji N. Bilateral Concurrent Eye Examination with a Head-Mounted Perimeter for Diagnosing Functional Visual Loss. Neuroophthalmology. 2016 Sep 20;40(6):281-285. doi: 10.1080/01658107.2016.1220593. PMID: 27928419; PMCID: PMC5120740. (Year: 2016