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 08/04/2023, 09/13/2024, and 05/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
A complete response to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection is either a reply by applicant showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference claims or the filing of a terminal disclaimer in accordance with 37 CFR 1.321 in the pending application(s) with a reply to the Office action (see MPEP § 1490 for a discussion of terminal disclaimers). Such a response is required even when the nonstatutory double patenting rejection is provisional.
As filing a terminal disclaimer, or filing a showing that the claims subject to the rejection are patentably distinct from the reference application’s claims, is necessary for further consideration of the rejection of the claims, such a filing should not be held in abeyance. Only objections or requirements as to form not necessary for further consideration of the claims may be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated.
Claims 1-13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 5-13 of copending Application No. 18/319,372 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1, 12, and 13 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1, 11, and 12 which require an optometry control program having a self-optometry control program, a visual target presentation, a response acquisition, and an assistance operation, meeting the claimed limitations. Furthermore, the limitations of instant claims 2-11 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1-3 and 5-13.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,343,079. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of instant claims 1, 12, and 13 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1 and 3 which require an optometry control program having a self-optometry control program, a visual target presentation, a response acquisition, and an instruction and notification step, meeting the claimed limitations. Furthermore, the limitations of instant claims 2-11 are fully encompassed and met by the details of reference claims 1-3.
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 2 and 8-10 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 2 recites the limitation: “the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform executing the assistance operation to assist in the progress of the self-optometry when a circumstance of the self-optometry in operation satisfies a predetermined condition or when an instruction for executing the assistance operation is inputted.” However, it is unclear how “a circumstance of the self-optometry in operation satisfies a predetermined condition.” Specifically, it is unclear what constitutes a “circumstance of the self-optometry” as it is unclear how a self-optometry can have a “circumstance.” Moreover, it is unclear what predetermined conditions should be defined and if the predetermined conditions are positively required. For the purposes of examination, any program that executes the assistance operation automatically or in response to an assistance operation being input will be interpreted as reading on the claimed limitation.
Claims 8 and 9 recite “resuming the self-optometry, which was temporarily stopped.” However, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the self-optometry which was temporarily stopped.” It is unclear that the claims require any stoppage of the self-optometry, or if a program that does not stop would read on the claimed invention. It is further unclear if the stopping is an intentional step of the program or an unintended error.
Additionally, claim 9 recites “the medium program” which lacks antecedent basis and will be interpreted as “the medium.” Furthermore, claim 9 recites “resuming the self-optometry, which was temporarily stopped, from a step among the progress procedure that is next to a step for which the optometry has been already completed.” However, it is unclear how the procedure can proceed to a step that has already been completed.
For the purposes of examination, any program that starts or stops the self-optometry will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention of claims 8 and 9.
Claim 10 is rejected as being dependent upon claim 9 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, 7, and 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakurada et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2018/0192868; hereinafter – “Sakurada”).
Regarding claim 1, Sakurada teaches a non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing an optometry control program for a subjective optometry system including a subjective optometry device and a first information processing device connected to the subjective optometry device, the subjective optometry device including a correction optical system that changes an optical characteristic of a visual target light flux presented to a subject eye and a visual target presentation unit that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye, the subjective optometry device subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of the subject eye (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221), the program being executed by the first information processing device and comprising:
a self-optometry application program that realizes an application for causing a self-optometry to proceed automatically based on a response from an examinee (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221), wherein
the self-optometry application program, when executed by the first information processing device, causes the first information processing device to perform:
outputting, to the subjective optometry device, a presentation instruction signal for performing a presentation operation to present the visual target to the examinee in accordance with a progress procedure for the self-optometry that automatically proceeds (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221);
acquiring the response from the examinee who visually recognized the presented visual target (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221);
storing a correction value of the optical characteristic of the subject eye, the correction value being acquired based on the acquired response, the visual target that was presented by the subjective optometry device when the response was acquired, and the optical characteristic of the visual target light flux (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0063, 0142-0146, 0200, and 0221); and
executing an assistance operation to assist in a progress of the self-optometry when a problem occurs during the progress of the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 1, 6, and 8; Paragraphs 0065-0067, 0114-0150, 0156-0159, and 0161-0166).
Regarding claim 2, Sakurada teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform executing the assistance operation to assist in the progress of the self-optometry when a circumstance of the self-optometry in operation satisfies a predetermined condition or when an instruction for executing the assistance operation is inputted (See e.g. Figs. 1, 6, and 8; Paragraphs 0065-0067, 0114-0150, 0156-0159, and 0161-0166).
Regarding claim 3, Sakurada teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform calling for an examiner when executing the assistance operation (See e.g. Figs. 1, 6, and 8; Paragraphs 0065-0067, 0114-0150, 0156-0159, and 0161-0166).
Regarding claim 4, Sakurada teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, outputting, to the subjective optometry device, the presentation instruction signal to proceed with at least a part of the progress procedure in response to an instruction inputted by an examiner (See e.g. Figs. 1, 6, and 8; Paragraphs 0065-0067, 0114-0150, 0156-0159, and 0161-0166).
Regarding claim 7, Sakurada teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, acquiring, in response to an instruction inputted from an examiner, a response from the examinee who visually recognized the visual target that was presented to the examinee in accordance with the progress procedure (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0063, 0142-0146, 0200, and 0221).
Regarding claim 11, Sakurada teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform executing the assistance operation in response to an instruction inputted into a second information processing device that is another information processing device connected to the first information processing device via a network (See e.g. Figs. 1, 6, and 8; Paragraphs 0065-0067, 0114-0150, 0156-0159, and 0161-0166).
Regarding claim 12, Sakurada teaches a subjective optometry system, comprising:
a subjective optometry device including a correction optical system that changes an optical characteristic of a visual target light flux presented to a subject eye and a visual target presentation unit that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye, the subjective optometry device subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of the subject eye (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221); and
a first information processing device connected to the subjective optometry device, wherein the first information processing device stores a self-optometry program and is configured to perform, when executing the self-optometry program, a self-optometry to proceed automatically based on a response from an examinee by, outputting, to the subjective optometry device, a presentation instruction signal for performing a presentation operation to present the visual target to the examinee in accordance with a progress procedure for the self-optometry that automatically proceeds (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221);
acquiring the response from the examinee who visually recognized the presented visual target (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221);
storing a correction value of the optical characteristic of the subject eye, the correction value being acquired based on the acquired response, the visual target that was presented by the subjective optometry device when the response was acquired, and the optical characteristic of the visual target light flux (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221); and
executing an assistance operation to assist in a progress of the self-optometry when a problem occurs during the progress of the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 1, 6, and 8; Paragraphs 0065-0067, 0114-0150, 0156-0159, and 0161-0166).
Regarding claim 13, Sakurada teaches a method for performing a self-optometry for a subjective optometry system including a subjective optometry device and a first information processing device connected to the subjective optometry device, the subjective optometry device including a correction optical system that changes an optical characteristic of a visual target light flux presented to a subject eye and a visual target presentation unit that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye, the subjective optometry device subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of the subject eye (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221), the method, implemented by the first information processing device, comprising:
outputting, to the subjective operation device, a presentation instruction signal for performing a presentation operation to present the visual target to an examinee in accordance with a progress procedure for the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221); acquiring a response from the examinee who visually recognized the presented visual target (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6-10; Paragraphs 0038, 0054-0070, 0142, 0174-0175, and 0215-0221); storing a correction value of the optical characteristic of the subject eye, the correction value being acquired based on the acquired response, the visual target that was presented by the subjective optometry device when the response was acquired, and the optical characteristic of the visual target light flux presented to the subject eye; and executing an assistance operation to assist in a progress of the self-optometry when a problem occurs during the progress of the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 1, 6, and 8; Paragraphs 0065-0067, 0114-0150, 0156-0159, and 0161-0166).
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sakurada (Japanese Pub. No. JP 2019-62978 A; hereinafter – “Sakurada’978”). All citations to Sakurada’978 are directed toward the English machine translation of the Japanese document, provided as a reference.
Regarding claim 1, Sakurada’978 teaches a non-transitory, computer readable, storage medium storing an optometry control program for a subjective optometry system including a subjective optometry device and a first information processing device connected to the subjective optometry device, the subjective optometry device including a correction optical system that changes an optical characteristic of a visual target light flux presented to a subject eye and a visual target presentation unit that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye, the subjective optometry device subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of the subject eye (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048), the program being executed by the first information processing device and comprising:
a self-optometry application program that realizes an application for causing a self-optometry to proceed automatically based on a response from an examinee (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048), wherein
the self-optometry application program, when executed by the first information processing device, causes the first information processing device to perform:
outputting, to the subjective optometry device, a presentation instruction signal for performing a presentation operation to present the visual target to the examinee in accordance with a progress procedure for the self-optometry that automatically proceeds (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0047);
acquiring the response from the examinee who visually recognized the presented visual target (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048);
storing a correction value of the optical characteristic of the subject eye, the correction value being acquired based on the acquired response, the visual target that was presented by the subjective optometry device when the response was acquired, and the optical characteristic of the visual target light flux (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0045); and
executing an assistance operation to assist in a progress of the self-optometry when a problem occurs during the progress of the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0045).
Regarding claim 2, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform executing the assistance operation to assist in the progress of the self-optometry when a circumstance of the self-optometry in operation satisfies a predetermined condition or when an instruction for executing the assistance operation is inputted (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0040-0045).
Regarding claim 3, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform calling for an examiner when executing the assistance operation (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0040-0045).
Regarding claim 4, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, outputting, to the subjective optometry device, the presentation instruction signal to proceed with at least a part of the progress procedure in response to an instruction inputted by an examiner (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0045).
Regarding claim 5, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, modifying, in response to an instruction inputted from an examiner, at least one of correction values stored during the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0045).
Regarding claim 6, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, omitting at least a part of the progress procedure in response to an instruction inputted from an examiner (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0042-0045).
Regarding claim 7, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, acquiring, in response to an instruction inputted from an examiner, a response from the examinee who visually recognized the visual target that was presented to the examinee in accordance with the progress procedure (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0045).
Regarding claim 8, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, resuming the self-optometry, which was temporarily stopped, from a step among the progress procedure that is next to a step for which the optometry has been already completed (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0040-0045).
Regarding claim 9, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, resuming the self-optometry, which was temporarily stopped, from a step among the progress procedure that is designated by an examiner (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0040-0045).
Regarding claim 7, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation: displaying the progress procedure on a display unit; and inputting an instruction for designating the step from which the self-optometry resumes through the progress procedure displayed on the display unit (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048).
Regarding claim 11, Sakurada’978 teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada’978 further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform executing the assistance operation in response to an instruction inputted into a second information processing device that is another information processing device connected to the first information processing device via a network (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048).
Regarding claim 12, Sakurada’978 teaches a subjective optometry system, comprising:
a subjective optometry device including a correction optical system that changes an optical characteristic of a visual target light flux presented to a subject eye and a visual target presentation unit that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye, the subjective optometry device subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of the subject eye (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048); and
a first information processing device connected to the subjective optometry device, wherein the first information processing device stores a self-optometry program and is configured to perform, when executing the self-optometry program, a self-optometry to proceed automatically based on a response from an examinee by, outputting, to the subjective optometry device, a presentation instruction signal for performing a presentation operation to present the visual target to the examinee in accordance with a progress procedure for the self-optometry that automatically proceeds (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0047);
acquiring the response from the examinee who visually recognized the presented visual target (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048);
storing a correction value of the optical characteristic of the subject eye, the correction value being acquired based on the acquired response, the visual target that was presented by the subjective optometry device when the response was acquired, and the optical characteristic of the visual target light flux (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048); and
executing an assistance operation to assist in a progress of the self-optometry when a problem occurs during the progress of the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0045).
Regarding claim 13, Sakurada’978 teaches a method for performing a self-optometry for a subjective optometry system including a subjective optometry device and a first information processing device connected to the subjective optometry device, the subjective optometry device including a correction optical system that changes an optical characteristic of a visual target light flux presented to a subject eye and a visual target presentation unit that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye, the subjective optometry device subjectively measuring an optical characteristic of the subject eye (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048), the method, implemented by the first information processing device, comprising:
outputting, to the subjective operation device, a presentation instruction signal for performing a presentation operation to present the visual target to an examinee in accordance with a progress procedure for the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048); acquiring a response from the examinee who visually recognized the presented visual target (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0047); storing a correction value of the optical characteristic of the subject eye, the correction value being acquired based on the acquired response, the visual target that was presented by the subjective optometry device when the response was acquired, and the optical characteristic of the visual target light flux presented to the subject eye; and executing an assistance operation to assist in a progress of the self-optometry when a problem occurs during the progress of the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 3-6; Paragraphs 0036-0048).
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) 5-6 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakurada in view of Seriani (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2015/0070650).
Regarding claim 5, Sakurada teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada fails to explicitly disclose that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, modifying, in response to an instruction inputted from an examiner, at least one of correction values stored during the self-optometry.
However, Seriani teaches a system and method for enabling customers to obtain refraction specification including a self-optometry application program that causes a first information processing device to perform, when executing an assistance operation, modifying, in response to an instruction inputted from an examiner, at least one of correction values stored during the self-optometry (See e.g. Figs. 2-3; Paragraphs 0039, 0065, 0067-0068, and 0071-0072).
Seriani teaches this modifying of correction values to provide “inexpensive and efficient screenings to determine whether visual loss is merely refractive or due to a medical anomaly, which in that case, the customer is referred to an ophthalmologist who typically does not sell or dispense eyeglasses” (Paragraph 0016) and to provide “an improved and more efficient digital imaging system that allows the customer to select and purchase frames and lenses based on the previous or current optical prescription self-derived as described above” (Paragraph 0017) and also “make it convenient for customers to purchase refractions, eyeglasses, and contact lenses and assist them with information and digital images necessary to make purchase choices either at a diagnostic location or elsewhere on a PC” (Paragraph 0018).
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 medium of Sakurada with the modifying of correction values of Seriani to provide “inexpensive and efficient screenings to determine whether visual loss is merely refractive or due to a medical anomaly, which in that case, the customer is referred to an ophthalmologist who typically does not sell or dispense eyeglasses” and to provide “an improved and more efficient digital imaging system that allows the customer to select and purchase frames and lenses based on the previous or current optical prescription self-derived as described above” and also “make it convenient for customers to purchase refractions, eyeglasses, and contact lenses and assist them with information and digital images necessary to make purchase choices either at a diagnostic location or elsewhere on a PC,” as taught by Seriani (Paragraphs 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 6, Sakurada teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada fails to explicitly disclose that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, omitting at least a part of the progress procedure in response to an instruction inputted from an examiner.
However, Seriani teaches a system and method for enabling customers to obtain refraction specification including a self-optometry application program that causes a first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, omitting at least a part of the progress procedure in response to an instruction inputted from an examiner (See e.g. Figs. 2-3; Paragraphs 0039, 0065, 0067-0068, and 0071-0072).
Seriani teaches this omitting to provide “inexpensive and efficient screenings to determine whether visual loss is merely refractive or due to a medical anomaly, which in that case, the customer is referred to an ophthalmologist who typically does not sell or dispense eyeglasses” (Paragraph 0016) and to provide “an improved and more efficient digital imaging system that allows the customer to select and purchase frames and lenses based on the previous or current optical prescription self-derived as described above” (Paragraph 0017) and also “make it convenient for customers to purchase refractions, eyeglasses, and contact lenses and assist them with information and digital images necessary to make purchase choices either at a diagnostic location or elsewhere on a PC” (Paragraph 0018).
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 medium of Sakurada with the omitting of Seriani to provide “inexpensive and efficient screenings to determine whether visual loss is merely refractive or due to a medical anomaly, which in that case, the customer is referred to an ophthalmologist who typically does not sell or dispense eyeglasses” and to provide “an improved and more efficient digital imaging system that allows the customer to select and purchase frames and lenses based on the previous or current optical prescription self-derived as described above” and also “make it convenient for customers to purchase refractions, eyeglasses, and contact lenses and assist them with information and digital images necessary to make purchase choices either at a diagnostic location or elsewhere on a PC,” as taught by Seriani (Paragraphs 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 8, Sakurada teaches the medium according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada fails to explicitly disclose that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, resuming the self-optometry, which was temporarily stopped, from a step among the progress procedure that is next to a step for which the optometry has been already completed.
However, Seriani teaches a system and method for enabling customers to obtain refraction specification including a self-optometry application program that causes a first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, resuming the self-optometry, which was temporarily stopped, from a step among the progress procedure that is next to a step for which the optometry has been already completed (See e.g. Figs. 2-3; Paragraphs 0039, 0065, 0067-0068, and 0071-0072).
Seriani teaches this resuming to provide “inexpensive and efficient screenings to determine whether visual loss is merely refractive or due to a medical anomaly, which in that case, the customer is referred to an ophthalmologist who typically does not sell or dispense eyeglasses” (Paragraph 0016) and to provide “an improved and more efficient digital imaging system that allows the customer to select and purchase frames and lenses based on the previous or current optical prescription self-derived as described above” (Paragraph 0017) and also “make it convenient for customers to purchase refractions, eyeglasses, and contact lenses and assist them with information and digital images necessary to make purchase choices either at a diagnostic location or elsewhere on a PC” (Paragraph 0018).
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 medium of Sakurada with the resuming of Seriani to provide “inexpensive and efficient screenings to determine whether visual loss is merely refractive or due to a medical anomaly, which in that case, the customer is referred to an ophthalmologist who typically does not sell or dispense eyeglasses” and to provide “an improved and more efficient digital imaging system that allows the customer to select and purchase frames and lenses based on the previous or current optical prescription self-derived as described above” and also “make it convenient for customers to purchase refractions, eyeglasses, and contact lenses and assist them with information and digital images necessary to make purchase choices either at a diagnostic location or elsewhere on a PC,” as taught by Seriani (Paragraphs 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 9, Sakurada teaches the medium program according to claim 1, as above.
Sakurada fails to explicitly disclose that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, resuming the self-optometry, which was temporarily stopped, from a step among the progress procedure that is designated by an examiner.
However, Seriani teaches a system and method for enabling customers to obtain refraction specification including a self-optometry application program that causes a first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation, resuming the self-optometry, which was temporarily stopped, from a step among the progress procedure that is designated by an examiner (See e.g. Figs. 2-3; Paragraphs 0039, 0065, 0067-0068, and 0071-0072).
Seriani teaches this resuming to provide “inexpensive and efficient screenings to determine whether visual loss is merely refractive or due to a medical anomaly, which in that case, the customer is referred to an ophthalmologist who typically does not sell or dispense eyeglasses” (Paragraph 0016) and to provide “an improved and more efficient digital imaging system that allows the customer to select and purchase frames and lenses based on the previous or current optical prescription self-derived as described above” (Paragraph 0017) and also “make it convenient for customers to purchase refractions, eyeglasses, and contact lenses and assist them with information and digital images necessary to make purchase choices either at a diagnostic location or elsewhere on a PC” (Paragraph 0018).
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 medium of Sakurada with the resuming of Seriani to provide “inexpensive and efficient screenings to determine whether visual loss is merely refractive or due to a medical anomaly, which in that case, the customer is referred to an ophthalmologist who typically does not sell or dispense eyeglasses” and to provide “an improved and more efficient digital imaging system that allows the customer to select and purchase frames and lenses based on the previous or current optical prescription self-derived as described above” and also “make it convenient for customers to purchase refractions, eyeglasses, and contact lenses and assist them with information and digital images necessary to make purchase choices either at a diagnostic location or elsewhere on a PC,” as taught by Seriani (Paragraphs 0016-0018).
Regarding claim 10, Sakurada in view of Seriani teaches the medium according to claim 9, as above.
Seriani further teaches that the self-optometry application program further causes the first information processing device to perform, when executing the assistance operation: displaying the progress procedure on a display unit; and inputting an instruction for designating the step from which the self-optometry resumes through the progress procedure displayed on the display unit (See e.g. Figs. 2-3; Paragraphs 0039, 0065, 0067-0068, and 0071-0072).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Seriani (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2021/0251482) teaches systems and methods for enabling customers to obtain vision and eye health examinations with similar processing steps.
Sakurada et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2017/0215723) teaches and ophthalmic examination system and ophthalmic examination management server implementing similar process steps.
Palanker et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2014/0285769) teaches a system and method for providing analysis of visual function using a mobile device with display having a similar assistance step.
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