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
Applicant’s amendments have resolved the USC 112(b) rejection of claim 1. Applicant’s amendments have not resolved the USC 112(f)+112(b) issues of claim 7. Applicant appears to have appended more function without resolving the corresponding structure to perform the function as discussed in the action mailed September 3, 2025.
Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the prior art and amendments are not persuasive. Applicant points out “the operation stick and the rough movement operation unit are separate elements of the ophthalmic apparatus of claim 1 (or operation unit of claim 12)”, however such language is not present in the claims. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “separate elements”; “not an independent unit”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Whether such features are, or are not required by the claims, Examiner did in fact cite separate element/independent units. For Tachikawa, the operation stick in is shown as (1105) and the rough movement operation unit includes (1205, 1206, 1204) which are independent from the stick.
For Maeda, Examiner referenced stick (37’) and rough movement operation unit (105, 105a) which are independent units.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, line 13, Examiner suggests -- of tilting the operation stick --
Claim 15, line 3, Examiner suggests -- of tilting the operation stick --
Appropriate correction is required.
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) an optometry unit configured to… in claim 1
b) a drive unit configured to change…in claim 1
c) a rough movement operation unit configured to detect…in claim 1, 12
d) an operation detection unit configured to detect…in claim 1, 12
e) a controller configured to…in claim 1
f) an X-direction linear guide unit…slides in the X direction…in claim 7
g) a Z-direction linear guide unit…slides in the Z direction…in claim 7
h) an X-direction slide unit…relatively sliding…in claim 7
i) a Z-direction slide unit…relatively sliding…in claim 7
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.
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 1-15 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 claims recite “a direct operation of the rough movement operation unit” which appears to be a subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, what is meant by “direction operation” appears entirely subjective to a practitioner of the invention. Does direct mean the human hand operates? Does “direct” include, or not include, the stick directly touching/pushing the rough movement operation unit? Other? The metes and bounds are unclear since what constitutes a direct operation appears subjective to those ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2173.05(b) - Claim scope cannot depend solely on the unrestrained, subjective opinion of a particular individual purported to be practicing the invention. Datamize LLC v. Plumtree Software, Inc., 417 F.3d 1342, 1350, 75 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
Claims 1-11, 13-15 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1, 12.
As to claim 7, claim limitations “X-direction slide unit… relatively slide…”; “Z-direction slide unit… relatively slide” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As per Applicant’s specification the X-direction slide unit(s) are elements (84A, 84B); the Z-direction slide unit(s) are elements (94A, 94B); while Applicant’s specification makes reference to a “slider”1, or bearings2, such features do not appear disclosed with sufficient structural relationships to the linear guides, etc. to permit the slide units to relatively slide with respect to their respective linear guides.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 8-11 are rejected as dependent upon claim 7.
As to claim 12, the claim recites “an operation unit configured to be operated by an examiner to change a relative position of an optometry unit…a rough movement operation unit operated by the examiner to roughly move the optometry unit” which is unclear whether the optometry unit is positively recited as a limitation. The preamble of the claim introduces the operation unit is for the optometry unit, however the body of the claim does not actually require an optometry unit, thus it is unclear whether the rough movement operation unit is required to move an optometry unit (MPEP 2173). Examiner will understand the claim that so long as there is a rough movement operation unit, such unit is necessarily capable of moving an optometry unit.
As to claim 12, the claim recites “rough movement operation unit is configured to allow the examiner to roughly move the optometry unit separately from the operation stick” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, the claim contains no structure which permits such function (separately roughly move). It is unclear what structure is required to perform the function or if such function is the result of operation in a certain manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is, and is not covered by the claim (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Examiner will presume that so long as the examiner can interact with the optometry unit and rough movement operation unit of the prior art, such function is necessarily present.
As to claim 14, the claim recites “rough movement operation unit is configured to allow the examiner to roughly move the optometry unit independently from the operation stick” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, the claim contains no structure which permits such function (independently roughly move). It is unclear what structure is required to perform the function or if such function is a the result of operation in a certain manner. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to draw a clear boundary between what is, and is not covered by the claim (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Examiner will presume that so long as the examiner can interact with the optometry unit and rough movement operation unit of the prior art, such function is necessarily present.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 15 recites “in the case where the operation unit detects either the operation…through the tilting operation of the stick…or the direction operation of the rough movement operation unit” which is a restatement and failure to further limit the claim 12 language “in the case where the operation unit detects at least one of the operation…through the tilting operation of the stick…and the direction operation of the rough movement operation unit”. In other words, claim 12 already includes either/or by virtue of reciting at least one of…and.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-7, 10-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Tachikawa (US 2020/0323428 - cited by Applicant).
As to claim 1, Tachikawa teaches an ophthalmic apparatus comprising
an optometry unit configured to examine a subject eye (Tachkawa Figs. 1A-C - 100, 101; Fig. 11 - 1100, 1101);
a drive unit configured to change a relative position of the optometry unit with respect to the subject eye (Tachikawa Figs. 1A-C - 102, 109, 108; Fig. 11 - 1106, 1102);
an operation stick supported to be tiltable in any direction (Tachikawa Fig. 1B - 108; Fig. 11 - 1105);
a rough movement operation unit configured to allow an examiner to roughly move the optometry unit (Tachikawa Figs. 3-4; para. [0068]-[0076]; Fig. 12 - 1105, 1206, 1205, 1204; para. [0164]-[0165])
an operation detection unit configured to detect an operation of the operation stick and the rough movement operation unit (Tachikawa para. [0068]-[0076]; [0164]-[0165]); and
a controller configured to:
control the drive unit, in a case where the operation detection unit detects a tilt operation of tilting the operation stick within a predetermined range (Tachikawa para. [0053]), in response to the detected tilt operation, to finely drive the drive unit and finely change a position of the optometry unit (Tachikawa para. [0066], [0163]); and
control the drive unit, in a case where the operation detection unit detects at least one of an operation of the rough movement operation unit through a tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range (Tachikawa para. [0071]) and a direct operation of the rough movement operation unit, in response to the detected operation, to roughly drive the drive unit and roughly change the position of the optometry unit (Tachikawa para. [0068]-[0076]; [0164]-[0165]).
As to claim 2, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tachikawa further teaches the rough movement operation unit is an annular member disposed on an outer periphery of the operation stick formed in a rod shape to surround the operation stick (Tachikawa Fig. 2A - 205, 108, 206; para. [0047]; Fig. 14 - 1205, 1206; para. [0148]), and the rough movement operation unit is supported to be slidable in two-dimensional directions (Tachikawa Fig. 2A - 205, X, Z; para. [0045]; Fig. 14 - 1205, X, Z; para. [0145]).
As to claim 3, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tachikawa further teaches in a case where a tilt angle of the operation stick is within the predetermined range, the operation stick is tilted to be independent of the rough movement operation unit (Tachikawa para. [0053]) and in a case where the tilt angle of the operation stick exceeds the predetermined range, the operation stick is tilted while contacting the rough movement operation unit to operate the rough movement operation unit (Tachikawa Fig. 3 - 302; para. [0069]-[0071]; Fig. 17B - 1723; para. [0079]).
As to claim 4, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Tachikawa further teaches the operation detection unit includes a rough movement operation detection unit that detects that the rough movement operation unit is operated (Tachikawa para. [0068]-[0076], [0164]-[0165]), and wherein both the tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range and the operation of the rough movement operation unit are detected by the rough movement operation detection unit (Tachikawa para. [0068]-[0076], [0164]-[0165]).
As to claim 6, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tachikawa further teaches in a case where an operation amount of the rough movement operation unit exceeds a specified amount, the operation detection unit detects that the rough movement operation unit is operated (Tachikawa para. [0071], [0164]).
As to claim 7, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tachikawa further teaches a guide unit (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1102, 1201, 1221, 1219, 1220, 1222) configured to guide a movement of the rough movement operation unit on a slide plane which is a two-dimensional plane on which the rough movement operation unit is slid (Tachkawa Fig. 12 - X-Z plane), wherein one direction on the slide plane is defined as an X direction (Tachikawa Fig. 12), a direction intersecting the X direction on the slide plane is defined as a Z direction (Tachikawa Fig. 12), and a direction intersecting the slide plane is defined as a Y direction (Tachikawa Fig. 12),
wherein the guide unit includes:
an X-direction linear guide unit linearly extending in the X direction (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1219; para. [0143]);
a Z-direction linear guide unit linearly extending in the Z direction (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1221; para. [0143]);
an X-direction slide unit attached to the X-direction linear guide unit and arranged such that the X-direction linear guide unit can relatively slide in the X direction with respect to the X-direction slide unit (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1220; para. [0144]) and
a Z-direction slide unit attached to the Z-direction linear guide unit and arranged such that the Z-direction linear guide unit can relatively slide in the Z direction with respect to the Z-direction slide unit (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1222; para. [0144]),
wherein the X-direction linear guide unit slides in the X direction with respect to the X-direction slide unit to guide a movement of the rough movement operation unit in the X direction (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1219, 1220; para. [0144]), and
wherein the Z-direction slide unit slides in the Z direction with respect to the Z-direction linear guide unit to guide a movement of the rough movement operation unit in the Z direction (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1221, 1222; para. [0144]).
As to claim 10, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Tachikawa further teaches the X-direction linear guide unit and the Z-direction linear guide unit are disposed on the same XZ plane (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1219, 1221).
As to claim 11, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Tachikawa further teaches wherein the rough movement operation unit is connected with the Z-direction slide unit (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1105, 1221, 1222; para. [0139], [0143]), in which the Z-direction slide unit moves on an XZ plane in synchronization with a movement of the rough movement operation unit on the XZ plane (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - X-Z; para. [0139], [0143], [0164]), and
wherein the X-direction linear guide unit and the Z-direction linear guide unit are connected with each other to integrally move in the X direction (Tachikawa Fig. 12 - 1221, 1222, 1219, 1220; para. [0143]-[0144]).
As to claim 12, Tachikawa teaches an operation unit configured to be operated by an examiner to change a relative position of an optometry unit of a connectable ophthalmic apparatus with respect to a subject eye (Tachikawa Figs. 1A-C - 108, 102; Fig. 2A - 108, 102; Fig. 12 - 1105), the operation unit comprising
an operation stick supported to be tiltable in any direction (Tachikawa Fig. 1B - 108; Fig. 11 - 1105);
a rough movement operation unit configured to allow the examiner to roughly move the optometry unit separately from the operation stick (Tachikawa Figs. 1A-C - 101, 108; Figs. 3-4; para. [0068]-[0076]; Fig. 12 - 1105, 1206, 1205, 1204; para. [0164]-[0165]; as shown/discussed the optometry unit (101) is roughly moved separately (e.g. move in x, y, z) from the movement of the operation stick (e.g. tilt)), and
an operation detection unit configured to detect an operation of the operation stick and the rough movement operation unit (Tachikawa para. [0068]-[0076]; [0164]-[0165]),
wherein, in a case where the operation detection unit detects a tilt operation of tilting the operation stick within a predetermined range (Tachikawa para. [0053]), the operation unit is configured to finely change a position of the optometry unit in response to the detected tilt operation (Tachikawa para. [0066], [0163]); and
wherein in a case where the operation detection unit detects at least one of an operation of the rough movement unit through a tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range (Tachikawa para. [0071]) and a direct operation of the rough movement operation unit, operation unit is configured to roughly change the position of the optometry unit in response to the detected operation (Tachikawa para. [0068]-[0076]; [0164]-[0165]).
As to claim 13, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tachikawa further teaches the controller is configured to control the drive unit in the case when the operation detection unit detects the operation of the rough movement operation unit through the tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range (Tachikawa para. [0071]) and in the case when the operation detection unit detects the direct operation of the rough movement operation unit (Tachikawa para. [0068]-[0076], [0164]-[0165]), in response to the detected operation, to roughly drive the drive unit and roughly change the position of the optometry unit (Tachikawa para. [0068]-[0076], [0164]-[0165]).
As to claim 14, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Tachikawa further teaches the rough movement operation unit is configured to allow the examiner to roughly move the optometry unit independently from the operation stick (Tachikawa Figs. 1A-C - 101, 108; Figs. 3-4; para. [0068]-[0076]; Fig. 12 - 1105, 1206, 1205, 1204; para. [0164]-[0165]; as shown/discussed the optometry unit (101) is roughly moved independently (e.g. move in x, y, z) from the movement of the operation stick (e.g. tilt)).
As to claim 15, Tachikawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Tachikawa further teaches wherein in a case where the operation detection unit detects either the operation of the rough movement unit through a tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range (Tachikawa para. [0071]) or a direct operation of the rough movement operation unit, operation unit is configured to roughly change the position of the optometry unit in response to the detected operation (Tachikawa para. [0068]-[0076]; [0164]-[0165]).
Claims 1-6, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Maeda (JP 2002-369799; of record; text references made to accompanying machine translation).
As to claim 1, Maeda teaches an ophthalmic apparatus comprising
an optometry unit configured to examine a subject eye (Maeda Fig. 1);
a drive unit configured to change a relative position of the optometry unit with respect to the subject eye (Maeda Fig. 5 - 71, 82; para. [0039], [0043]);
an operation stick supported to be tiltable in any direction (Maeda Fig. 17 - 37’);
a rough movement operation unit configured to allow an examiner to roughly move the optometry unit (Maeda Fig. 17 - 105, 105a; para. [0066], [0067] - speed (rough) controlled after it contacts slide (105/105a))
an operation detection unit configured to detect an operation of the operation stick and the rough movement operation unit (Maeda Fig. 4 - 75, 84; para. [0040], [0043]); and
a controller configured to:
control the drive unit, in a case where the operation detection unit detects a tilt operation of tilting the operation stick within a predetermined range (Maeda Fig. 11; para. [0054]), in response to the detected tilt operation, to finely drive the drive unit and finely change a position of the optometry unit (Maeda Figs. 10, 11; para. [0053]-[0054] - position (fine) movement range from 0-20o); and
control the drive unit, in a case where the operation detection unit detects at least one of an operation of the rough movement operation unit through a tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range (Maeda Fig. 12; para. [0055]) and a direct operation of the rough movement operation unit (Maeda Fig. 17 - 105, 105a), in response to the detected operation, to roughly drive the drive unit and roughly change the position of the optometry unit (Maeda Figs. 10, 12; para. [0053], [0055] - speed (rough) movement range from 20-35o).
As to claim 2, Maeda teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Maeda further teaches the rough movement operation unit is an annular member (Maeda Figs. 16-18 - 105, 105a; para. [0066]) disposed on an outer periphery of the operation stick formed in a rod shape (Maeda Fig. 17 - 44) to surround the operation stick (Maeda Figs. 16, 18 - 105, 105a, 44), and the rough movement operation unit is supported to be slidable in two-dimensional directions (Maeda Figs. 16, 18 - 105, 105a).
As to claim 3, Maeda teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Maeda further teaches in a case where a tilt angle of the operation stick is within the predetermined range, the operation stick is tilted to be independent of the rough movement operation unit (Maeda Fig. 16 - 44, 105; para. [0053], [0067]), in a case where the tilt angle of the operation stick exceeds the predetermined range, the operation stick is tilted while contacting the rough movement operation unit to operate the rough movement operation unit (Fig. 18 - 44, 105, 105a; para. [0066]-[0067]).
As to claim 4, Maeda teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Maeda further teaches the operation detection unit includes a rough movement operation detection unit that detects that the rough movement operation unit is operated (Maeda Fig. 4 - 84, 75; Fig. 12; para. [0055]), and wherein both the tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range and the operation of the rough movement operation unit are detected by the rough movement operation detection unit (Maeda Fig. 17 - 44, 105, 105a; Fig. 18 - 44, 105, 105a).
As to claim 5, Maeda teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Maeda further teaches a biasing unit (Maeda Figs. 16-18 - 102a,b,c,d; 103a,b,c,d; para. [0065]-[0066]) configured to bias the rough movement operation unit toward an initial position where the rough movement operation unit is in contact with the operation stick in a state where the tilt angle reaches a boundary of the predetermined range (Maeda Figs. 16-18 - 102a,b,c,d; 103a,b,c,d; para. [0065]-[0066]), wherein when the tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range is completed, the biasing unit moves the rough movement operation unit toward the initial position to return the tilt angle of the operation stick being in contact with the rough movement operation unit within the predetermined range (Maeda Figs. 16-18 - 102a,b,c,d; 103a,b,c,d; para. [0065]-[0066]).
As to claim 6, Maeda teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Maeda further teaches wherein in a case where an operation amount of the rough movement operation unit exceeds a specified amount, the operation detection unit detects that the rough movement operation unit is operated (Maeda Figs. 11, 12; para. [0055]; Figs. 17-18 - 105; para. [0067]).
As to claim 12, Maeda teaches an operation unit configured to be operated by an examiner to change a relative position of an optometry unit of a connectable ophthalmic apparatus with respect to a subject eye (Maeda Figs. 1, 4, 10-18), the operation unit comprising
an operation stick supported to be tiltable in any direction (Maeda Fig. 17 - 37’);
a rough movement operation unit configured to allow the examiner to roughly move the optometry unit separately from the operation stick (Maeda Fig. 17 - 105, 105a; para. [0066], [0067] - rough speed movement based on displacement of covers (105, 105a) which can be manipulated via the stick (37’, 44) or, as shown, are physically accessible to the examiner thus “separately” from the operation stick), and
an operation detection unit configured to detect an operation of the operation stick and the rough movement operation unit (Maeda Fig. 4 - 75, 84; para. [0040], [0043]),
wherein, in a case where the operation detection unit detects a tilt operation of tilting the operation stick within a predetermined range (Maeda Fig. 12; para. [0055]), the operation unit is configured to finely change a position of the optometry unit in response to the detected tilt operation Maeda Figs. 10, 11; para. [0053]-[0054] - position (fine) movement range from 0-20o); and
wherein in a case where the operation detection unit detects at least one of an operation of the rough movement operation unit through a tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range (Maeda Fig. 12; para. [0055]) and a direct operation of the rough movement operation unit, the operation unit is configured to roughly change the position of the optometry unit in response to the detected operation (Maeda Figs. 10, 12; para. [0053], [0055] - speed (rough) movement range from 20-35o).
As to claim 13, Maeda teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Maeda further teaches the controller is configured to control the drive unit in the case when the operation detection unit detects the operation of the rough movement operation unit through the tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range (Maeda Fig. 12; para. [0055]) and in the case when the operation detection unit detects the direct operation of the rough movement operation unit (Maeda Fig. 17 - 105, 105a), in response to the detected operation, to roughly drive the drive unit and roughly change the position of the optometry unit (Maeda Figs. 10, 12; para. [0053], [0055] - speed (rough) movement range from 20-35o).
As to claim 14, Maeda teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Maeda further teaches the rough movement operation unit is configured to allow the examiner to roughly move the optometry unit independently from the operation stick (Maeda Fig. 17 - rough movement operation unit (105, 105a) can be manipulated, for example, by hand by the examiner).
As to claim 15, Maeda teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Maeda further teaches wherein in the case where the operation detection unit detects either the operation of the rough movement operation unit through the tilt operation of tilting the operation stick over the predetermined range (Maeda Fig. 12; para. [0055]) or a direct operation of the rough movement operation unit, the operation unit is configured to roughly change the position of the optometry unit in response to the detected operation (Maeda Figs. 10, 12; para. [0053], [0055] - speed (rough) movement range from 20-35o).
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maeda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mimura (US 2009/0079939; cited by Applicant).
As to claim 7, Maeda teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Maeda further teaches a guide unit configured to guide a movement of the rough movement operation unit on a slide plane which is a two-dimensional plane on which the rough movement operation unit is slid (Maeda Fig. 17 - 102a; Fig. 18 - 102a,b,c,d; para. [0066]), wherein one direction of the slide plane is defined as an X direction (Maeda Fig. 4 - L/R; Figs. 17, 18), a direction intersecting the X direction on the slide plane is defined as a Z direction (Maeda Fig. 4 - F/B; Figs. 17, 18), and a direction intersecting the slide plane is defined as a Y direction (Maeda Fig. 4 - vertical).
Maeda does not specify the details of the guide unit to include the X-direction linear guide unit, Z-direction linear guide unit, X-direction slide unit; Z-direction slide unit.
In the same field of endeavor Mimura teaches an XZ guide unit including:
an X-direction linear guide unit linearly extending in the X direction (Mimura Fig. 2B - 68b; para. [0023]);
a Z-direction linear guide unit linearly extending in the Z direction (Mimura Fig. 2B - 68a; para. [0023]);
an X-direction slide unit attached to the X-direction linear guide unit and arranged such that the X-direction linear guide unit can relatively slide in the X direction with respect to the X-direction slide unit (Mimura Fig. 2B - 65b; para. [0022]) and
a Z-direction slide unit attached to the Z-direction linear guide unit and arranged such that the Z-direction linear guide unit can relatively slide in the Z direction with respect to the Z-direction slide unit (Mimura Fig. 2B - 65a; para. [0022]),
wherein the X-direction linear guide unit slides in the X direction with respect to the X-direction slide unit to guide a movement of the rough movement operation unit in the X direction (Mimura Fig. 2B - 68b; para. [0023], [0030]), and
wherein the Z-direction slide unit slides in the Z direction with respect to the Z-direction linear guide unit to guide a movement of the rough movement operation unit in the Z direction (Mimura Fig. 2B - 65a; para. [0023], [0030]).
As to claim 8, Maeda in view of Mimura teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and while Mimura includes linear guides and linear slides on the +X, -X, +Z, -Z locations (Mimura Fig. 2B - 68b, 68a, 65b, 65a) Mimura doesn’t teach the linear guide units are in pairs. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to duplicate the linear guide units and slide units, since it has been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Harza 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960).
As to claim 9, Maeda in view of Mimura teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Maeda further teaches wherein the X-direction linear guide unit is provided with an X-direction biasing unit (Maeda Figs. 16, 18 - 103a,b,c,d) configured to bias a position of the X-direction linear guide unit with respect to the X-direction slide unit toward an initial X position where the rough movement operation unit is not operated in the X direction (Maeda para. [0066], [0068]), and
wherein the Z-direction slide unit is provided with a Z-direction biasing unit (Maeda Figs. 16, 18 - 103a,b,c,d) configured to bias a position of the Z-direction slide unit with respect to the Z-direction linear guide unit toward an initial Z position where the rough movement operation unit is not operated in the Z direction (Maeda para. [0066], [0068]).
As to claim 10, Maeda in view of Mimura teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Mimura further teaches the X-direction linear guide unit and the Z-direction linear guide unit are disposed on the same XZ plane (Mimura Fig. 2B - 68b, 68a).
As to claim 11, Maeda in view of Mimura teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Mimura further the rough movement operation unit is connected with the Z-direction slide unit (Mimura Fig. 2B - 57, 57b; para. [0022]), in which the Z-direction slide unit moves on an XZ plane in synchronization with a movement of the rough movement operation unit on the XZ plane (Mimura Fig. 2B - 57, 57b, 65a; para. [0022]), and
wherein the X-direction linear guide unit and the Z-direction linear guide unit are connected with each other to integrally move in the X direction (Mimura Fig. 2B - 68a, 68b).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ito (JP 2008-061715) is cited an additional example of a rough movement separate/independent from a stick.
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 April 16, 2026
1 Spec. para. [0113]
2 Spec. para. [0114]
Prosecution Insights