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.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 30, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 and the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “Pp2” (Figure 14) has been used to designate both “second presentation position Pp2” (in S23) and “first presentation position Pp2” (in S26).
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. 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.
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 1-2, 6-10, 13-15 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 claim 1, the claim recites “a first presentation position near a far point of the subject eye” which is a subjective/relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, how close is “near a far point”? Within a few centimeters? Within a few diopters? Other? Examiner will understand the claim that so long as the prior art presents the target at a presentation position such limitation is met.
As to claim 1, the claim (line 28) recites “the presentation position continuously or gradually changes” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Additionally, such feature is relative/subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What is a gradual change? For purpose of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand this to be “the presentation position continuously or incrementally”.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “determines cloud and fog effect based on a measurement result of the objective measurement” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, cloud and fog effect of what? Examiner will understand as the cloud and fog effect of the subject eye.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the objective measurement of the subject eye is performed beforehand…” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Beforehand relative to when? Examiner will understand the claim such that the predetermined presentation position is a position corresponding to an objectively determined corrected vision position.
Claims 2, 6-10, 13-15 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “the presentation position” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, claim 1 recites “a first presentation position…and a second presentation position”. Additionally, claim 2 appears to recite substantially similar subject matter to limitations already found in claim 1. Examiner will consider claim 2 redundant to claim 1.
As to claim 6, the claim recites “the presentation position” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, claim 1 recites “a first presentation position…and a second presentation position”.
As to claim 10, the claim recites “the presentation position” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Specifically, claim 1 recites “a first presentation position…and a second presentation position”.
As to claim 10, the claim recites “causes the patient to move a gaze direction in accordance with the position where the presented, and…” which is not understood. This appears to be an incomplete clause or typographical error. Examiner will understand as “in accordance with the presentation position
As to claim 10, the claim recites “the different position” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Examiner will understand as the differential position.
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 1-2, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Sakagawa et al. (US 2013/0208244 - Sakagawa; of record).
As to claim 1, Sakagawa teaches an ophthalmologic apparatus (Sakagawa fig. 1) comprising
a target projection system that presents a target image to a subject eye (Sakagawa Fig. 1 - 216, 224, 215, 214; para. [0035], [0036]);
an objective measurement optical system that objectively measures an eye characteristic of the subject eye (Sakagawa Fig. 1 - 01, 02, 201, 210; para. [0029], [0034]);
a control portion that controls the target projection system and the objective measurement optical system (Sakagawa Fig. 1 - 300; Fig. 4);
the control portion presents the target at a predetermined presentation position with the target projection system (Sakagawa Fig. 6 - S100, S102; para. [0051]), wherein the presentation position is set to a position wherein the objective measurement of the subject eye is performed beforehand and the spherical and astigmatism powers of the subject eye obtained at that time are cancelled (Sakagawa para. [0044], [0050], [0051] - fixation target begins at location of preliminary power determination);
the control portion determines cloud and fog effect based on a measurement result of the objective measurement (Sakagawa Fig. 6 - S102; para. [0051], [0052]);
wherein the control portion repeatedly changes the presentation position between a first presentation position near a far point of the subject eye and a second presentation position farther than the first presentation position when presenting the target image with the target projection system (Sakagawa Fig. 6 - S104, S105, S102; para. [0051], [0052], [0057], [0058] - as shown and discussed, the fogging procedure is repeated to obtain the fogging state);
and wherein the control portion continuously or incrementally changes the presentation position of the target image from the first presentation position to the second presentation position when presenting the target with the target projection system (Sakagawa Fig. 1 - 224, 215, 216; para. [0051], [0052]; Fig. 6 - S102) and intermittently objectively measures the eye characteristic with the objective measurement optical system while the subject eye visually recognizes the target image in which the presentation position continuously or gradually changes (Sakagawa Fig. 6 - S101, S103, S104, S105, S102; para. [0056]-[0058]);
wherein the control portion terminates the presentation of the target image and determines the effect of the visual recognition of the target image based on a measurement result of the objective measurement during the presentation position changes or a measurement result of the objective measurement after the representation position is changed (Sakagawa Fig. 6 - S104, S105; para. [0057], [0058]).
As to claim 2, Sakagawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Sakagawa further teaches wherein the control portion further sets the presentation position to a far presentation position farther than a far point of the subject eye, and presents the target at the far presentation position with the target presentation system to perform the objective measurement with the objective measurement optical system when the subject eye visually recognizes the target presented to the far presentation position (Sakagawa Fig. 6 - S104, S105, S102; para. [0051], [0052], [0057], [0058]).
As to claim 13, Sakagawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Sakagawa further teaches the control portion performs the objective measurement of the eye characteristic with the objective measurement optical system several times after the target image is presented for a predetermined time (Sakgawa Fig. 6; para. [0057], [0058]).
As to claim 14, Sakagawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Sakagawa further teaches the change in the target image includes changing a size of the image so that the image is smaller the further the presentation position is from the subject eye (Sakagawa Fig. 1 - 215, 216; para. [0051], [0052]).
As to claim 15, Sakagawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Sakagawa further teaches the control portion presents a different target image according to the presentation position when the target is presented to the target projection system (Sakagawa Fig. 1 - 215, 216; para. [0051], [0052]).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakagawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hanaki et al. (US 2005/0174536 - Hanaki; of record).
As to claim 6, Sakagawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Sakagawa further teaches the control portion repeatedly changes the presentation position between a first presentation position corresponding to a far point of the subject and a third presentation position (Sakagawa Fig. 6 - S102; para. [0057], [0058]), but doesn’t specify the third condition is nearer than the first presentation position when presenting the target to the target projection system.
In the same field of endeavor Hanaki teaches an ophthalmic apparatus changing a presentation position to a target position nearer than a far point (Hanaki Fig. 2 - 55R, 57R, 58R; para. [0026]; Fig. 5; para. [0040]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such near position since, as taught by Hanaki, such positions allow for assessing the accommodative function and fluctuations (Hanaki para. [0005], [0064]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakagawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abitbol et al. (US 2022/0071483 - Abitbol; of record).
As to claim 7, Sakagawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the target projection system presents a background image to a periphery of the target simultaneously, and the target is presented such that, upon the subject eye being focused on the target, the background image is blurred.
In the same field of endeavor Abitbol teaches an objective ophthalmic measurement system (Abitbol Fig. 2B - 205, 234; para. [0055]) displaying a target (Abitbol Fig. 2B - 240) with a blurred background (Abitbol Fig. 2B - 242; para. [0061]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such focused target and blurred background since, as taught by Abitbol, such displaying enhances the focus of the eye on the intended target (Abitbol para. [0061]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakagawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kohayakawa (US 5,483,305; of record).
As to claim 9, Sakagawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the target projection system presents a target to each of the left and right subject eyes, and the control portion controls the target projection system to provide parallax to the target when presenting the target to the target projection system.
In the same field of endeavor Kohayakawa teaches providing an objective ophthalmic measurement system (Kohayakawa Fig. 7) with a target projection system presenting a target to left and right eyes (Kohayakawa Fig. 22 - EL, ER, 94L, 93L, 94R, 93R; col. 9:1-10), and a control portion controls the target projection system to provide parallax to the target when presenting the target to the target projection system (Kohayakawa Fig. 22 - 94L, 93L, 94R, 93R; col. 9:15-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such parallax target since, as taught by Kohayakawa, such features allow for a more natural sense of distance (Kohayakawa col. 9:15-30).
Claims 8, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sagakawa as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yee et al. (US 2008/0284979 - Yee; of record).
As to claim 8, Sakagawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the control portion alternately presents a wide angle image and a narrow angle image when presenting the target to the target projection system. In the same field of endeavor Yee teaches an ophthalmological apparatus alternately presenting a wide angle image and a narrow angle image when presenting the target to the target projection system (Yee Fig. 5D, 5E; para. [0081], [0082]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such wide angle and narrow angle image since, as taught by Yee, such features allow for the images to move toward or away for attracting the fixation and helping to relax accommodation (Yee Fig. 5D, 5E; para. [0081], [0082]).
As to claim 10, Sakagawa teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the control portion sets the presentation position of the target image to a differential presentation position and causes the patient to move a gaze direction in accordance with the position where the presented, and where gaze direction is shifted in an up and down direction and/or a right and left direction relative to a front normal viewing state, and present the target image at the different presentation position with the target presentation position, and performs the objective measurement with the objective measurement optical system when the subject eye visually recognizes the target.
In the same field of endeavor Yee teaches an ophthalmological apparatus sets the presentation position of the target image to a differential presentation position (Yee Fig. 5D, E - 216; para. [0081]; Fig. 7 - 290; para. [0088]) and causes the patient to move a gaze direction in accordance with the position where the presented (Yee Fig. 5D, E - 216; para. [0081]; Fig. 7 - 290; para. [0088]), and where gaze direction is shifted in an up and down direction and/or a right and left direction relative to a front normal viewing state (Yee Fig. 5D, E - 216; para. [0081]; Fig. 7 - 290; para. [0088]), and present the target image at the different presentation position with the target presentation position (Yee Fig. 5D, E - 216; para. [0081]; Fig. 7 - 290; para. [0088]), and performs the objective measurement with the objective measurement optical system when the subject eye visually recognizes the target (Yee Figs. 5D-E - 216; para. [0081]; Fig. 7 - 250, 270; para. [0083]; Fig. 8 - 320, 340, 355; para. [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide such wide angle and narrow angle image since, as taught by Yee, such features allow for the images to move toward or away for attracting the fixation and helping to relax accommodation (Yee Fig. 5D, E - 216; para. [0081]; Fig. 7 - 290; para. [0088]).
Conclusion
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).
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, 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 August 19, 2026
Prosecution Insights