DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the drawing objection and the feature of “target”, Applicant appears to not fully understand CFR 1.83(a). Applicant’s specification makes no statement the “target” is a conventional feature. Even if the target were conventional, such claimed features are still required as being illustrated in the drawings - e.g. graphical symbol or labeled representation. Examiner has not required, nor does CFR 1.83(a) require, a detailed illustration of the target, merely that the target is illustrated in the figure, which it is not. Applicant appears to assert a POSITA understands what a display is, but this isn’t the issue since the display is not the target. Additionally, Applicant’s suggestion the arrows (rays) are the target is not consistent with the specification. The arrows are not labeled at all, thus any assertion what they may or may not be is speculation. The objection will be maintained.
Applicant’s removal of microphone and eye tracking subsystem have resolved the associated drawing objections.
Applicant’s amendment to change “alignment mechanism” to “alignment actuator” does not remove the USC 112(f) invocation. The associated USC 112(b) additionally remains, see below.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 9, 14 have not resolved the USC 112(a) issue. Specifically, the claims continue to require the processor control alignment based on audio/audible indication. Applicant’s specification provides no computer implemented algorithm for the processor to perform the method.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 11, 16 have not resolved the USC 112(a) issue. Specifically, the claims continue to require the processor to control alignment based on the eye tracking indication. Applicant’s specification provides no computer implemented algorithm for the processor to perform the method.
Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the amended language of claims 1, 12, and 19 are not persuasive. As an initial point, such language appears to constitute prohibited new matter, see below. Lee’s axis (O) is an optical axis of the eye (20). Thus Lee moving the sensor (105) via the processor and actuator (106, 110) along the axis (O) to obtain in focused images of the eye is also “a processor configured to signal the electronically controlled alignment actuator to move the sensor into alignment with an optical axis of the eye…”.
This is also illustrated at least in Fig. 6a whereby the device indicates to the user where the center of the cornea (CO) (optical axis of the eye) needs to align with to the cross hair of image sensor (SI) in the image (FV).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on December 16, 2025; December 23, 2025 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “target” (claims 1, 12, 19); “view port” (claims 4, 18) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 12, 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12, (line 8), Examiner suggests -- device to [[align]] move a sensor --
Claim 19 (line 8), Examiner suggests -- to [[align ]] move a sensor --
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) alignment actuator…to move…in claims 1, 12, 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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, 19, the claim limitation “alignment actuator…to move” 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.
Specifically, Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any structure, material, to perform the alignment. Applicant’s specification appears to disclose essentially a black box (4) without any means for performing the alignment.
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 2-11, 13-18, 20 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1, 12, 19.
As to claims 4, 18, the claims recite “the housing comprises a view port…the display is positioned no more than two hundred millimeters from the view port along the optical path” which is unclear based on the claimed range including 0mm. Those of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand how there is a distance of 0mm between the view port (not shown) and the display while also including optics between the view port and display. Examiner will understand the claim such that there is necessarily some lower bound, albeit not disclosed by Applicant.
Claims 5-9 are rejected as dependent upon claim 4.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claims 1, 12, 19, the claims recite “a processor configured to signal the electronically controlled alignment actuator to move the sensor into alignment with an optical axis of the eye of the user” which appears to be prohibitive new matter. Specifically, Applicant’s originally filed specification does not specify the alignment of the sensor (3) being to an optical axis of the eye. Applicant’s specification only states the sensor (3) is generically aligned to the eye, but no specifics as to what (axis, etc.).
Claims 2-11, 13-18, 20 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1, 12, 19.
As to claims 4, 18, the claims recite “the housing comprises a view port…the display is positioned no more than two hundred millimeters from the view port along the optical path” which appears to be prohibitive new matter. Applicant’s specification does not provide any distances from a (not shown) view port and the display (7) being no more than 200mm.
Claims 5-9 are rejected as dependent upon claim 4.
As to claim 9, the claim recites, via claim 1, “the processor configured to signal…in response to obtaining an indication the eye of the user is focused on the target…the indication is associated with an audio signal representative of an audible input from the user” which is a computer implemented function without the necessary/corresponding algorithm (MPEP 2161.01 - If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made). Applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose any/sufficient computer algorithm to perform the audio signal processing to indicate the eye of the user is focused on the target and move the sensor.
As to claim 11, the claim recites, via claim 1, “the processor configured to signal…in response to obtaining an indication the eye of the user is focused on the target…the indication is associated with eye tracking data representative of a position of the eye of the user relative to the display” which is a computer implemented function without the necessary/corresponding algorithm (MPEP 2161.01 - If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made).
Applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose any/sufficient computer algorithm to perform/obtain eye tracking data representative of a position of the eye relative to the display and move the sensor.
As to claim 14, the claim recites, via claim 12, “operations performed by a processor…obtain an indication that the eye of the user is focused on the target… the indication is associated with an audio signal representative of an audible input from the user” which is a computer implemented function without the necessary/corresponding algorithm (MPEP 2161.01 - If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made). Applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose any/sufficient computer algorithm to perform the audio signal processing to indicate the eye of the user is focused on the target and move the sensor.
As to claim 16, the claim recites, via claim 12, “operations performed by a processor…obtain an indication that the eye of the user is focused on the target …the indication is associated with eye tracking data representative of a position of the eye of the user relative to the display” which is a computer implemented function without the necessary/corresponding algorithm (MPEP 2161.01 - If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made).
Applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose any/sufficient computer algorithm to perform/obtain eye tracking data representative of a position of the eye relative to the display and move the sensor.
As to claim 20, the claim recites, via claim 19, “configure a processor to perform…obtaining an indication that the eye of the user is in focused on the target …the indication is associated with eye tracking data representative of a position of the eye of the user relative to the display” which is a computer implemented function without the necessary/corresponding algorithm (MPEP 2161.01 - If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made).
Applicant’s specification does not appear to disclose any/sufficient computer algorithm to perform/obtain eye tracking data representative of a position of the eye relative to the display and move the sensor.
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 1-8, 10, 12-13, 15, 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 2020/0121185 - Lee; of record).
As to claim 1, Lee teaches a device for measuring properties of an eye (Lee Figs. 1-7) comprising
a housing (Lee Fig. 1 - unlabeled housing of (10));
a sensor in the device housing to measure a property of an eye of a user (Lee Fig. 1 - 105; para. [0014], [0018]; Fig. 5; para. [0039]);
an electronically controlled alignment actuator to which the sensor is coupled (Lee Fig. 1 - 104, 106; para. [0024]);
a display in the device housing that shows a target (Lee Fig. 1 - 108; para. [0025]; Fig. 2; para. [0028]; Figs. 6a-e).
optics in the housing and positioned in an optical path taken by the target (Lee Fig. 1 - 107; para. [0025]), as shown by the display, from the display to the eye of the user (Lee Fig. 1 - 107, 20), wherein the optics is configured to change accommodation of the eye (Lee Fig. 1 - 107, 109; para. [0025], [0030]), and has adjustable focal length that enables the user to see the target with changing acuity (Lee Fig. 1 - 107, 109; para. [0025], [0030]), and
a processor configured to signal the electronically controlled alignment actuator to move the sensor into alignment with an optical axis of the eye of the user (Lee Fig. 1 - 110, 104, 105, 105; para. [0023], [0024], [0030]), in response to obtaining an indication that the eye of the user is focused on the target (Lee Fig. 1 - 110, 104, 105, 105; para. [0023], [0024], [0030]; Figs. 6a-e - as discussed, user adjusts focus of the target (108) to see target clearly, as per the user adjustment, the processor (110) moves to focus the image sensor (105) along the axis (O) of the eye (20) to capture fundus images to determine dioptric measurements of the eye).
As to claim 2, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lee further teaches the device housing is that of a handheld device that is to be held in a hand of the user while the user brings the device into proximity of the eye of the user (Lee Fig. 1; para. [0001]-[0003]), wherein the proximity is a distance between the device housing and the eye (Lee Fig. 1 - 10, 20), at which the sensor can measure pressure or take an image of the eye while the user can see the target being shown by the display (Lee Fig. 1 - 105, 108; para. [0018]).
As to claim 3, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lee further teaches the target is a static image or an active image (Lee Fig. 2; Figs. 6a-e).
As to claim 4, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Lee further teaches the housing comprises a view port (Lee Fig. 1 - 10, 101), and wherein the display is positioned no more than two hundred millimeters from the view port along the optical path (Lee Fig. 1 - 200, 108; para. [0003], [0031] - display at distance of 10cm).
As to claim 5, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Lee further teaches the optics comprises a convex solid lens that is moveable (Lee Fig. 1 - 107; para. [0025]).
As to claim 6, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Lee further teaches the convex solid lens is motorized to be moveable as controlled electronically by the processor (Lee Fig. 1 - 109, 110, 107; para. [0025]).
As to claim 7, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Lee further teaches the optics comprises a fluidic lens whose shape is controlled electronically by the processor (Lee Fig. 1 - 107, 109, 110; para. [0025]).
As to claim 8, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Lee further teaches the processor is configured to obtain the indication that the eye of the user is focused on the display (Lee Fig. 2; Figs. 6a-e; para. [0030], [0036]), by prompting the user to indicate when the user can see the display clearly (Lee Fig. 2; Figs. 6a-e; para. [0030], [0036]), while the processor is signaling the optics to change the adjustable focal length (Lee para. [0030]).
As to claim 10, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Lee further teaches the processor is configured to obtain the indication that the eye of the user is focused on the target by receiving manual or audible input from the user that the user can see the target clearly (Lee para. [0030]), wherein the optics can be manually adjusted by the user until the user can see the target clearly (Lee para. [0030]).
As to claim 12, Lee teaches a method for measuring properties of an eye using a device (Lee Figs. 1-7), the method comprising operations performed by a programmed processor as
signaling display in the device to show a target (Lee Fig. 1 - 108; para. [0025]; Fig. 2; para. [0028]; Figs. 6a-e), wherein the device comprises optics positioned in an optical path taken by the target (Lee Fig. 1 - 107; para. [0025]), as shown by the display, from the display to an eye of a user (Lee Fig. 1 - 108, 107, 20), the optics being configured to change accommodation by the eye and having adjustable focal length that enables the user to see the target with changing acuity (Lee Fig. 1 - 107, 109; para. [0025], [0030])
obtaining an indication the eye of the user is focused on the target (Lee Fig. 2; Figs. 6a-e; para. [0030], [0036]), and in response signaling an alignment actuator in the device to align/move a sensor into alignment with an optical axis of the eye of the user (Lee Fig. 1 - 110, 104, 105, 105; para. [0023], [0024], [0030]; Figs. 6a-e - as discussed, user adjusts focus of the target (108) to see target clearly, as per the user adjustment, the processor (110) moves to focus the image sensor (105) on the axis (O) of the eye (20) to capture fundus images to determine dioptric measurements of the eye);
after signaling the alignment actuator to move the sensor, obtaining sensor data, produced by the sensor, which measures a property of the eye (Lee Fig. 1 - 105; para. [0014], [0018]; Fig. 5; para. [0039]).
As to claim 13, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Lee further teaches obtaining an indication that the eye of the user is focused on the target comprises the programmed processor prompting the user to indicate when the user can see the target clearly (Lee Fig. 2; Figs. 6a-e; para. [0030], [0036]), while the programmed processor is signaling the optics to change the adjustable focal length (Lee para. [0030]).
As to claim 15, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Lee further teaches obtaining the indication that the eye of the user is focused on the target comprises the programmed processor receiving manual or audible input from the user that the user can see the target clearly (Lee para. [0030]), after the user has manually adjusted the optics until the user can see the target clearly (Lee para. [0030]).
As to claim 17, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Lee further teaches the target is a static image or an active image (Lee Fig. 2; Figs. 6a-e).
As to claim 18, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Lee further teaches a housing comprises a view port (Lee Fig. 1 - 10, 101), and wherein the display is positioned no more than two hundred millimeters from the view port along the optical path (Lee Fig. 1 - 200, 108; para. [0003], [0031] - display at distance of 10cm).
As to claim 19, Lee teaches a memory having stored therein instructions that configure a processor to perform a method comprising
signaling display in the device to show a target (Lee Fig. 1 - 108; para. [0025]; Fig. 2; para. [0028]; Figs. 6a-e), wherein the device comprises optics positioned in an optical path taken by the target (Lee Fig. 1 - 107; para. [0025]), as shown by the display, from the display to an eye of a user (Lee Fig. 1 - 108, 107, 20), the optics being configured to change accommodation by the eye and having adjustable focal length that enables the user to see the target with changing acuity (Lee Fig. 1 - 107, 109; para. [0025], [0030]);
obtaining an indication the eye of the user is focused on the target (Lee Fig. 2; Figs. 6a-e; para. [0030], [0036]), and in response signaling an alignment actuator in the device to align/move a sensor in the device into alignment with an optical axis of the eye of the user (Lee Fig. 1 - 110, 104, 105, 105; para. [0023], [0024], [0030]; Figs. 6a-e - as discussed, user adjusts focus of the target (108) to see target clearly, as per the user adjustment, the processor (110) moves to focus the image sensor (105) on the axis (O) of the eye (20) to capture fundus images to determine dioptric measurements of the eye);
after signaling the alignment actuator to move the sensor, obtaining sensor data, produced by the sensor, which measures a property of the eye (Lee Fig. 1 - 105; para. [0014], [0018]; Fig. 5; para. [0039]).
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 9, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claims 8, 13 above, and further in view of Durr et al. (US 2016/0128566 - Durr; of record).
As to claims 9 and 14, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 8 and 13, and Lee further teaches detecting input from the user as the indication the user can see the target clearly (Lee Fig. 2; Figs. 6a-e; para. [0030], [0036]) but doesn’t specify the indication is associated with an audio signal representative of an audible output from the user.
In the same field of endeavor Durr teaches a handheld optometry device having a processing to detect audible input from the user (Durr Fig. 26 - 2616; para. [0220]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a microphone since as taught by Durr, such audio input devices are well known in the art for the purpose providing user feedback for the purpose of aligning the device (Durr para. [0220]).
Claims 11, 16, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee as applied to claim 1, 12, 19 above, and further in view of Bitoun (US 2018/0116512 - Bitoun; of record).
As to claims 11, 16, 20, Lee teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 1, 12, 19, and Lee further teaches signal the alignment actuator to move the sensor in response to an indication the user looking at the target (Lee Fig. 2; Figs. 6a-e; para. [0030], [0036]), but doesn’t specify the indication is associated with eye tracking data representative of a position of the eye of the user relative to the display.
In the same field of endeavor Bitoun teaches an optometric device measuring properties of the eye (Bitoun Fig. 1A) having a target (Bitoun Fig. 6 - 64; Fig. 1A - 14; para. [0084] [0120] - IOP jet nozzle (14) having fixation target (64)), with an eye tracking subsystem and associated processing (Bitoun Fig. 1A - 18; para. [0084]) to determine whether the user is looking at the target (Bitoun Fig. 1A - 14, 20; para. [0084]) and signal an alignment mechanism (Bitoun Fig. 1A - 16, 14; para. [0083], [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide eye tracking and associated alignment since, as taught by Bitoun, such systems are well known in the art for the purpose of keeping a sensor (e.g. IOP jet) in alignment with the eye (Bitoun Fig. 1A; para. [0083], [0084]).
Conclusion
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 March 11, 2026