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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on November 22, 2023 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 “generating, by the imaging apparatus, an image to be shown” (claim 1) 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
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 (line 6), Examiner suggests -- adjusting, by the imaging apparatus, the --
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) configuring, by an imaging apparatus, an optical stop… (means for imaging and configuring an optical stop)…in claim 1.
b) generating, by the imaging apparatus, an image… (means imaging by generating an image)…in claim 1.
c) detecting, by the imaging apparatus, a spatial adjustment…(means for imaging and detecting a spatial adjustment)…in claim 1, 3.
d) adjusting, by the imaging apparatus, the optical stop (means for imaging and adjusting the optical stop)…in claim 1, 3.
e) a capturing medium (means for capturing)…in claim 19.
f) a controller configured to vary a size of the optical stop…in response to detecting spatial adjustments of the eye… (means for varying an optical stop size and detecting spatial adjustments)…in claim 19.
g) an eye tracking mechanism configured to detect…(means for eye tracking)…in claim 20.
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 1-8, 11 ,12-14, 18-20 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 claim 1, claim limitation “detecting, by the imaging device, a spatial adjustment…”; 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 to claim 19, claim limitation “a controller configured to…detecting spatial adjustments of the eye”; 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, such language is directed to computer implemented functions invoking USC 112(f), and thus the sufficient/necessary algorithm must be disclosed (MPEP 2181.II.B - The corresponding structure is not simply a general purpose computer by itself but the special purpose computer as programmed to perform the disclosed algorithm. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1333, 86 USPQ2d at 1239. Thus, the specification must sufficiently disclose an algorithm to transform a general purpose microprocessor to the special purpose computer. See Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1338, 86 USPQ2d at 1241).
As per Applicant’s specification1, detecting a spatial adjustment can be detected “using a software-implemented search pattern”, yet no algorithm is disclosed for such search pattern (MPEP 2181.II.B - Accordingly, a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph is appropriate if the specification discloses no corresponding algorithm associated with a computer or microprocessor. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1337-38, 86 USPQ2d at 1242).
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As to claim 20, claim limitation “eye tracking mechanism” 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 specification1 fails to clearly link the structure of such eye tracking mechanism. Paragraph [0055] recites undetailed “conventional” eye tracking techniques as well as allusions to LIDAR, RF sensing, and simple reflection off the cornea, yet no structure of such mechanism is disclosed.
Therefore, the claims are 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 2-8, 20 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1 or 19.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “improve clarity of the image” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “improve clarity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, what constitutes an improvement appears to be the subjective opinion of a practitioner of the invention. Neither the claims or specification provide an objective standard as to what is such an improvement. Additionally, such clarity appears to also be the subjective opinion of a practitioner of the invention. What is clear to one person isn’t necessarily clear to another.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the alignment is generated, such improvement of clarity is necessarily present.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “spatial adjustments away from…the epicenter…result in the eye observing a partial FOV and vignetting along a periphery of the image” which is a function that does not appear to follow from the structure. Specifically, such function appears to depend on the associated optics, distance the eye travels from the epicenter, distance of the eye from device, and/or apparatus housing/structure. The metes and bounds appear to be dependent upon the actions of the viewer - i.e. moving the eye to experience a FOV or vignetting, which doesn’t appear to further limit the method performed by the imaging apparatus of claim 3. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand claim 4 necessarily met by the method of claim 3 whereby the user can achieve such function by moving the eye.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “random movement” which is unclear what this random movement is relative to (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Is this movement of the eye? Movement of the device? Movement of something else? For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches detecting the spatial adjustment, such features are necessarily present.
As to claim 8, the claim recites “the second size is substantially identical to a determiner of an iris of the eye after accounting for magnification” which is unclear what is meant by a “substantially identical”, “a determiner of an iris”. Possibly a typographical error? It is unclear what magnification is being accounted for. Is this magnification of the iris due to some apparatus component? Such claim features appear directed to be relative/subjective terminology (MPEP 2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art teaches a second size, such second size is necessarily “substantially identical” to any arbitrarily defined iris determiner.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “prompted by vignetting of an image visible to the eye…the vignetting is caused by the first size being at least two times larger than an iris of the eye” which is unclear how such vignetting is being measure and determined (MPEP 2173.05(g)), the function of “an image visible to the eye” fails to follow from the recited structure (MPEP 2173.05(g)), how the first size being 2x+ larger results in such vignetting (MPEP 2173.05(g)), and what constitutes 2x+ larger than the iris (i.e. is this the diameter, area, perimeter, other) (MPEP 2173.05(b)).
As per Applicant’s specification, there does not appear to be any device and display of an image, thus how such image becomes vignetted by the aperture stop being 2x+ larger than the iris is unclear. Also, what constitutes 2x+ larger? Is this 2x+ the diameter? 2x the area? Other? Additionally, as those of ordinary skill in the art understand, vignetting is associated with the reduction of the brightness of the periphery, however it is unclear how the first size (of the stop) which is the larger of the two claimed sizes, causes the vignetting.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art has a stop larger than the iris, such features are necessarily met.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “generating an image” which does not follow from the recited structure of claim 9 (MPEP 2173.05(g)). The metes and bounds are unclear since how a processor absent any display, etc. generates an image to be shown to an eye.
As to claim 14, the claim recites “improve clarity of the image” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “improve clarity” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, what constitutes an improvement appears to be the subjective opinion of a practitioner of the invention. Neither the claims or specification provide an objective standard as to what is such an improvement. Additionally, such clarity appears to also be the subjective opinion of a practitioner of the invention. What is clear to one person isn’t necessarily clear to another.
For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the alignment is generated, such improvement of clarity is necessarily present.
As to claim 18, the claim recites “a magnification of the iris” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure of claims 9, 18 (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, how or where the iris is magnified does not appear to follow from the processor performing the operations or how such magnification is determine. The metes and bounds are unclear since the sizing appears to be based on an arbitrarily determined magnification (MPEP 2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand that so long as the art teaches claim 17, such magnification features are necessarily present as based on an iris diameter.
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, 9, 19, the claims recite the computer implemented function of detecting spatial adjustments of the eye, however Applicant’s specification fails to provide the sufficient/necessary algorithm to perform the function (MPEP 2161.01 - Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient)).
Here, Applicant’s specification1 states such iris detection can be performed by “using a software-implemented search pattern”, however no algorithm is disclosed for such search pattern. While the specification (para. [0055]) recites additional examples of eye tracking, such examples are also devoid of any algorithm (MPEP 2161.01.I - When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing… 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).
Claims 2-8, 10-18, 20 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1, 9, 19.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Wilf et al. (US 2016/0143528 - Wilf; cited by Applicant).
As to claim 1, Wilf teaches a method comprising,
configuring, by an imaging apparatus (Wilf Fig. 1; 20, 42), an optical stop housed within the imaging apparatus to be a first size (Wilf Figs. 2, 6 - 142, 140; para. [0116], [0115]);
generating, by the imaging apparatus, an image to be shown to an eye (Wilf Fig. 1 - 40, 42; para. [0096]);
detecting, by the imaging apparatus, a spatial adjustment that causes the eye to be located closer to a specified location that aligns with an epicenter of the optical stop (Wilf Figs. 2, 6 - 140, 130, 90, 46; para. [0115], [0116], [0146] - as discussed, eye tracking (spatial adjustment detection) relative position to epicenter (130, 46) of stop (140)), thereby improving alignment of a retina and the optical stop (Wilf Figs. 2, 6 - 90, 78, 80 46; para. [0115], [0116], [0146]);
adjusting, by the imaging apparatus, the optical stop to be a second size that is smaller than the first size (Wilf Fig. 2 - 142, 140; para. [0115], [0116], [0146] - stop size being adaptively sized, and explicitly smaller than ERS as per the imaging needs).
As to claim 2 (as understood), Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wilf further teaches spatial adjustments toward the specified location that aligns with the epicenter of the optical stop improve clarity of the image (Wilf Fig. 1; para. [0141], [0142]).
As to claim 3, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wilf further teaches detecting, by the imaging apparatus, a second spatial adjustment that causes the eye to be located further from the specified location that aligns with the epicenter of the optical stop (Wilf Figs. 2, 6 - 140, 142; para. [0115], [0116], [0146]), thereby worsening alignment of the retina and the optical stop (Wilf Figs. 2, 6 - 90, 78, 80 46; para. [0115], [0116], [0146]);
adjusting, by the imaging apparatus, the optical stop to be a third size that is larger than the second size (Wilf Fig. 2 - 142, 140; para. [0115], [0116], [0146] - stop size being adaptively sized which includes third size being larger).
As to claim 4 (as understood), Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Wilf further teaches spatial adjustments away from the specified location that aligns with the epicenter of the optical stop result in the eye observing a partial FOV and vignetting along a periphery of the image (Wilf Fig. 2 - 90, 60).
As to claim 5 (as understood), Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wilf further teaches the spatial adjustment is prompted by the spatial adjustment is prompted by vignetting along a periphery of the image, an active signal shown in the image, a random movement, or any combination thereof (Wilf Fig. 2 - 90, 74; para. [0146]).
As to claim 6, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wilf further teaches a difference between the first and second sizes is based on a diameter of an iris of the eye (Wilf Fig. 6 - 74; para. [0090], [0100], [0115] - sizes of the aperture based on eye reflection size (ERS) which is based on a diameter of the iris (pupil)).
As to claim 7, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Wilf further teaches the difference between the first and second sizes is based on magnification of the iris (Wilf Fig. 6 - 74; para. [0090], [0100], [0115] [0128]-[0129]).
As to claim 8 (as understood), Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Wilf further teaches the second size is substantially identical to a determiner of an iris of the eye accounting for magnification (Wilf Fig. 6 - 74; para. [0090], [0100], [0115]).
As to claim 9, Wilf teaches a non-transitory medium with instructions stored thereon that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (Wilf Figs. 1, 2, 6) comprising
configuring an optical stop of an imaging apparatus to which an eye is presented for imaging to be a first size (Wilf Fig. 2 - 142, 140; para. [0115], [0116]);
detecting a spatial adjustment of the eye from a first location to a second location that is closer to a specified location that aligns with an epicenter of the optical stop (Wilf Figs. 2, 6 - 140, 130, 90, 46; para. [0115], [0116], [0146] - as discussed, eye tracking (spatial adjustment detection) relative position to epicenter (130, 46) of stop (140));
adjusting, in response to detecting the spatial adjustment, the optical stop to be a second size that is smaller than the first size (Wilf Fig. 2 - 142, 140; para. [0115], [0116], [0146] - stop size being adaptively sized, and explicitly smaller than ERS as per the imaging needs).
As to claim 10, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Wilf further teaches the spatial adjustment is along a plane that is substantially orthogonal to a path along which light is directed through the optical stop for imaging purposes (Wilf Fig. 2 - θ, 90, 46; para. [0146] - lateral motion of the eye being orthogonal to (46)).
As to claim 12, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Wilf further teaches the detecting and the adjusting are performed continually until the eye is substantially aligned with the epicenter of the optical stop (Wilf Figs. 2, 6; para. [0115], [0116], [0146]).
As to claim 13, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Wilf further teaches generating an image to be shown to the eye (Wilf Fig. 1 - 42, 40).
As to claim 14 (as understood), Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Wilf further teaches spatial adjustments of the eye toward the specified location improve clarity of the image (Wilf para. [0115], [0116]).
As to claim 15, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Wilf further teaches detecting a second spatial adjustment of the eye from the second location to a third location that is closer to the specified location that aligns with the epicenter of the optical pupil of the stop (Wilf Fig. 2 - 142, 140, 46, 130; para. [0115], [0116], [0146]) and adjusting, in response to detecting the second spatial adjustment, the optical stop to be a third size that is smaller than the second size (Wilf Fig. 2 - 142, 140, 46, 130; para. [0115], [0116], [0146] - stop size being adaptively sized, and explicitly smaller than ERS as per the imaging needs)).
As to claim 16, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Wilf further teaches detecting a second spatial adjustment of the eye from the second location to a third location that is further from the specified location that aligns with the epicenter of the optical pupil of the stop (Wilf Fig. 2 - 142, 140, 46, 130; para. [0115], [0116], [0146]) and adjusting, in response to detecting the second spatial adjustment, the optical stop to be a third size that is larger than the second size (Wilf Fig. 2 - 142, 140; para. [0115], [0116], [0146] - stop size being adaptively sized which includes third size being larger).
As to claim 17, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Wilf further teaches a difference between the first and second sizes is based on a diameter of an iris of the eye (Wilf Fig. 6 - 74; para. [0090], [0100], [0115] - sizes of the aperture based on eye reflection size (ERS) which is based on a diameter of the iris (pupil)).
As to claim 18, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Wilf further teaches the difference between the first and second sizes is based on magnification of the iris (Wilf Fig. 6 - 74; para. [0090], [0100], [0115], [0128]-[0129]).
As to claim 19, Wilf teaches an imaging apparatus comprising
a light source configured to emit light therefrom to an eye for illumination of a retain (Wilf Fig. 2 - 62, 120, 80; para. [0112]);
an objective lens configured to collect reflected light so as to image the retina (Wilf Fig. 2 - 144; para. [0115]);
an optical stop through which the reflected light is guided along a path toward a capturing medium (Wilf Fig. 2 - 142, 140; para. [0115], [0116]);
and a controller configured to vary a size of the optical stop in response to detecting spatial adjustments of the eye along a plane that is substantially orthogonal to the path (Wilf Figs. 2, 6 - 140, 130, 90, 46; para. [0115], [0116], [0146]).
As to claim 20, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 17, and Wilf further teaches an eye tracking mechanism configured to detect the spatial adjustments of the eye in real time (Wilf Fig. 2; para. [0089]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilf (cited above).
As to claim 11, Wilf teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Wilf further teaches the spatial adjustment is prompted by vignetting of an image visible to the eye through the imaging apparatus (Wilf Fig. 2; para. [0115], [0116], [0146]), but doesn’t specify the vignetting is caused by the first size being at least two times larger than an iris of the eye.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to provide the first size being 2x larger, since such a modification would involve only a mere change in size of a component for the purpose of scaling up or down of an element which merely requires a change in size is generally considered as being within the ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 189 USPQ 143 (CCAP 1976).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Durr et al. (US 9,854,965; 2016/0128566); Takeuchi et al. (US 7,019,780); Stuttler (US 5,907,431); Yu et al. (US 2016/0183789) are cited as additional examples of eye testing devices with various aspects of eye tracking, self-alignment, and aperture stop control.
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 November 10, 2025
1 Originally filed spec. para. [0055]