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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18538297 filed on 12/13/2023 is presented for examination by the examiner.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Priority
As required by e M.P.E.P. 210, 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on continuation of application of PCT/JP22/23856 filed 06/14/2022 that claims foreign priority from application JP2021-100268 filed 06/16/2021 (Japan).
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
However, to overcome a prior art rejection, applicant(s) must submit a translation of the foreign priority papers in order to perfect the claimed foreign priority because said papers has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. See MPEP § 213.04
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 11-15, 17-31 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimada (of record, see IDS dated 12/13/2023) US 20080036965 A1 in view of Cappo et al. (hereafter Cappo) US 20040057013 A1.
In regard to independent claims 11, 25 and 26, Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) a visual field testing method and device comprising a processor configured for testing a visual field sensitivity in a visual field range of an eye of a subject (i.e. as perimeter device system and program, with processor CPU 14 and program for perimetry (program stored in memory 16, and executable by CPU 14) on an eye to be examined by presenting a stimulus in coordinate position of visual field, see abstract, paragraphs [3-14, 26-37,39-49]), the method (perimetry) and the processor/computer (14 with program in memory 16) configured to perform/comprising:
a step of presenting indicator light of a plurality of different luminance values to each test point of a plurality of first test points in the visual field range (i.e. presenting stimuli values in dome 18 connection with the designated fundus area at different test points IP, paragraphs [28-32, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 5-7);
a step of obtaining a measured luminance value at each test point of the first test points by acquiring a recognition signal of the eye of the subject for the indicator light (i.e. obtaining stimuli responses at test IP based on parameter values, stimulus illuminance by examinee responses e.g. SP by switch 20 or voice, e.g. paragraphs [29-32, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8);
a step of obtaining a calculated value by calculating, from the measured luminance value of each test point of the plurality of first test points, a luminance value estimated to be recognized by the eye of the subject, at a second test point that is a test point other than the first test points (i.e. calculating the value and position of spot position e.g. M1, M2 for the test point(s) IP where response was not received (black circles) based on measured luminance points SP, e.g. paragraphs [29-32, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8); and
a step of obtaining an estimated value that is a value estimated to be recognized by the eye of the subject at the second test point by obtaining an average value of the calculated luminance value calculated from each test point of the plurality of first test points (i.e. as calculating the value and position of spot position e.g. M1, M2 by computing a center of gravity or a coordinate average between two or more search points SP, from the test point(s) IP where response was not received (black sports) based on measured luminance points SP (white spots), e.g. paragraphs [29-32, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8). But Shimada is silent that the calculated value is luminance value at the second test point that, and the obtained estimated value is an estimated luminance value.
However, Cappo teaches in the same field of invention of automated stereocampimeter and related method for improved measurement of visual field (see Figs. 1-2,4,9-20, title, abstract, paragraphs [3,18-32, 61-65, 85-88, 95-96, 100-110,138-141,143-152,161-167,196-199], including testing visual field points with different brightness and sensitivities at different test points on eye retina, e.g. paragraphs [95-96, 100-110, 196-199]), and further teaches that the calculated value is luminance value at the second test point that, and the obtained estimated value is an estimated luminance value (i.e. as visual sensitivities in test points not seen or missed test points e.g. 1501, 1504 and equivalents in Figs. 13-14, 16-17, obtained by interpolation of other test points 1502 and using average brightness, paragraphs [100-110, 161-167, 196-199], Figs. 13-17, thereby providing the grouping points and drawing of a defective area and effectively mapping scotomas e.g. paragraphs [31, 147,151,196-199]).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adapt the and modify the perimeter device system for perimetry method of Shimada to include that the visual field test points with different brightness and sensitivities at different test points on eye retina where the calculated value is luminance value at the second test point that, and the obtained estimated value is an estimated luminance value according to teachings of Cappo in order to provide the grouping of unseen points and drawing the defective area and effectively mapping scotomas in the retina of the patient (e.g. paragraphs [31, 147,151,196-199]).
Regarding claims 12 and 27, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the step of obtaining an estimated luminance value includes calculating an error range of the estimated luminance value (i.e. as value and position of spot position e.g. M1, M2 including brightness and sensitivity per combination with Cappo, see paragraphs [29-32, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8, includes calculations for corrections of scale and correction factors e.g. paragraphs [36, 44-49], and as range of suspicious test points in region and calculations assuming sensitivity to within a set range or tolerance , Cappo paragraphs [145,148,158,198]).
Regarding claims 13 and 28, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the error range is calculated based on a distance between the first test point and the second test point (as calculations for corrections of scale and correction factors involve distances between SP points, e.g. paragraphs [36, 44-49], and between 1501, 1502, Cappo paragraphs [145,148,157-158,164,167, 198]).
Regarding claims 14 and 29, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the second test point is an additional test point in a case in which the error range is larger than a predetermined value (as best understood given that additional SP points are tested with regard to calculations for corrections of scale and correction factors involve distances between SP points, e.g. paragraphs [36, 44-49], and as additional 1502 point(s), see Cappo paragraphs [145,148-149,157-158,167, 198], Figs. 15-18).
Regarding claims 15 and 30, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the step of obtaining a measured luminance value includes determining an upper limit value and a lower limit value of a luminance range of indicator light (luminance of light source at test point in visual field dome 18, paragraphs [28-32], Fig. 1) to be presented to the first test point in the step of obtaining a measured luminance value, based on a luminance value of indicator light previously presented to the first test point (i.e. obtaining stimuli responses at test IP based on parameter values, stimulus illuminance for IP, search points SP, e.g. paragraphs [29-32, 35-43, 47-49], and per combination with Cappo, repeating of steps for test points 1301, 1302 given sensitivity set range, paragraphs [161-167, 196-199], Figs. 13-17), and presenting indicator light of a luminance value within the luminance range to the first test point in the step of obtaining a measured luminance value ( as best understood, for IP test points, and repeated search points SP, e.g. paragraphs [29-32, 35-43, 47-49], and per combination with Cappo, repeating of steps for test points 1301, 1302 given sensitivity set range and threshold sensitivity, paragraphs [161-167, 196-199], Figs. 13-17) .
Regarding claim 16, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that determining an upper limit value and a lower limit value of the luminance range includes determining an upper limit value and a lower limit value of the luminance range using a cumulative function indicating a relationship between a luminance value of indicator light previously presented to the first test point and a number of tests (as best understood, due IP test points, and repeated search points SP, e.g. paragraphs [29-32, 35-43, 47-49], and with combination with Cappo, repeating of steps for test points 1301, 1302 given sensitivity set range and threshold sensitivity established for previous points, paragraphs [161-167, 196-199], Figs. 13-17) .
Regarding claims 17 and 31, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the calculated luminance value is calculated using a stochastic process (i.e. as per combination with Cappo, calculation is by interpolation of other test points 1502 and by estimating a size and a shape of an area containing only points corresponding to unseen test images, and selecting a series of spaced points along a boundary of said area based on the size and shape estimates, paragraphs [19, 100-110, 154-157, 161-167, 196-199], Figs. 13-17).
Regarding claims 19 and 33, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the step of obtaining a measured luminance value is performed in the visual field range (i.e. as obtaining stimuli responses at test IP based on parameter values, stimulus illuminance performed in visual field dome 18, with coordinate system, e.g. paragraphs [05-14, 28-33, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8, also visual field range of display 100 of Cappo, e.g. Figs. 1-2, 9), the visual field range is divided into a plurality of partial areas, and the step of obtaining a calculated luminance value and the step of obtaining an estimated luminance value are performed in each of the plurality of partial areas (as visual field is divided into areas e.g. quadrants of coordinate system and areas AR, see e.g. paragraphs [29-32, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-9, and in combination with Cappo, paragraphs [100-110, 161-167, 196-199], Figs. 13-17).
Regarding claim 20, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that a visual field sensitivity map of the visual field range is generated based on respective luminance values of the measured luminance value and the estimated luminance value (i.e. as MAP of test IP of on parameter values, stimulus illuminance performed in visual field dome 18, with coordinate system, e.g. paragraphs [05-14, 28-33, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8, and as topographical map of visual field based on luminance sensitivities, e.g. Cappo paragraphs [100-110, 161-167, 196-199], Figs. 15-17).
Regarding claims 21 and 34, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the division into the plurality of partial areas includes dividing the visual field range into four areas by a horizontal meridian and a vertical meridian (i.e. as quadrants in coordinate system of visual field, e.g. paragraphs [05-14, 28-33, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8),
a first partial area is an area above the horizontal meridian and on a left side of the vertical meridian, a second partial area is an area above the horizontal meridian and on a right side of the vertical meridian, a third partial area is an area below the horizontal meridian and on a left side of the vertical meridian, a fourth partial area is an area below the horizontal meridian and on a right side of the vertical meridian (i.e. as four quadrants of the coordinate system of visual field, e.g. paragraphs [05-14, 28-33, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8), and the step of obtaining a calculated luminance value and the step of obtaining an estimated luminance value are performed in each of the first partial area, the second partial area, the third partial area, and the fourth partial area (i.e. as the calculating the value and position of spot position e.g. M1, M2 for the test point(s) IP and coordinate average, including brightness sensitivities per combination, e.g. see claim 11 above, paragraphs [29-32, 35-43, 47-49], is performed in four quadrants of the coordinate system of visual field, e.g. paragraphs [05-14, 28-33, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8), and a visual field sensitivity map of the visual field range is generated based on respective luminance values of the measured luminance value and the estimated luminance value (i.e. as MAP of test IP of on parameter values, stimulus illuminance performed in visual field dome 18, with coordinate system, e.g. paragraphs [05-14, 28-33, 35-43, 47-49], Figs. 6-8, and as topographical map of visual field based on luminance sensitivities, e.g. Cappo paragraphs [100-110, 161-167, 196-199], Figs. 15-17).
Regarding claims 22 and 35, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that a condition is estimated from the measured luminance value and the estimated luminance value (i.e. as estimating blind spot to the macula lutea by correctly conducting a perimetry, paragraphs [03-14, 41-46], as the unseen/blind pot is used to estimate pathological condition(s) in the retina resulting from areas/scotomas of non-vision or reduced sensitivity of vision, or total loss of vision, per combination see Cappo paragraphs [03-6,11,19-20,25-26,31,67-68,140-141,145-147,152-167,196-199]).
Regarding claims 23, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that an additional test point is set based on the condition that has been estimated (i.e. as additional repeated SP, 1501,1502 based on scotoma, see e.g. Cappo, paragraphs [145,148-149,157-158,167, 198], Figs. 15-18).
Regarding claims 24, the Shimada-Cappo combination teaches the invention as set forth above, and Shimada teaches (see Figs. 1-20) that the condition is any of a nasal breakthrough, a nasal step, a temporal wedge defect, an arcuate scotoma, a paracentral scotoma, an altitudinal hemianopsia-like visual field, or a central residual visual field (as the unseen/blind spot in central position, e.g. paragraphs [32-33, and as areas/scotomas e.g. central scotoma, peripheral scotoma, per combination see Cappo paragraphs [03-6,11,19-20,25-26,31,67-68,145-147,152-167,196-199])..
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 32 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Heijl et al. US 6527391 B1 (see Figs. 1-8 and their descriptions), Gonzales de la Rosa US 8425039 B2 (see Figs. 1-3, 9-15 and their descriptions), and Hara US 20150201828 A1 (see Figs. and their descriptions) also disclose features of instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIN PICHLER whose telephone number is (571)272-4015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am -5:00pm.
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, Thomas K Pham can be reached at (571)272-3689. 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.
/MARIN PICHLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872