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 February 25, 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 “knob module” (claim 11); “buttons” (claim 11) 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 1-23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 15), Examiner suggests -- a cylinder axis (AXIS) [[in]] is known --
Claims 1-23 appear to interchange “user” and “tested subject”. Examiner suggests keeping with a single term, either “user” or “tested subject”.
Claim 21, Examiner suggests -- The system of claim 18 is further configured to --
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim should refer to other claims in the alternative only. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 16 not been further treated for art purposes.
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) computer module that provides…claim 1
b) communication module that allows…claim 1
c) reliable spherocylindrical module that allows…claim 1
d) a SPH adjustment module the allows…claim 1
e) an output module that allows…in claim 1
f) an objective refraction module with which…in claim 5
g) acquisition control module for the tested subject to trigger…claim 10
h) voice-controlled module that can use user’s voice to change… claim 11
i) authorization module to secure…claim 19
j) image module for measuring pupil distances…claim 21
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 1-23 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 “reliable spherocylindrical module…is known to be accurate and reliable” which are subjective/relative terms (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, neither the claims nor specification provide any objective metric to what is “reliable” and “accurate”. Examiner will understand such features to be lexicographical and referring to an objective refraction module/system.
Claims 2-23 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “but is not limited to” which is exemplary language and thus unclear whether the limitations are required or not (MPEP 2173.05(d)).
As to claim 3, the claim recites “a keyboard…communication with the computer module includes inputting personal information; inputting data from an old prescription” which is both the product (system of claim 1) and the method steps of using (inputting the data). The metes and bounds are unclear since whether the system and keyboard infringes the claim, or if the user/operating using the keyboard to input the data infringes the claim (MPEP 2173.05(p)).
As to claim 3, the claim recites “personal information” and “data from an old prescription” which are subjective terms (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, what is, or is not considered “personal information”? Also, how old is old? Furthermore, the type of data input to the keyboard does not patentably distinguish the keyboard. Examiner will understand claim 3 such that so long as the prior art teaches a keyboard, claim 3 will be taught.
As to claim 6, the claim recites “all the other optical aberrations of the eye” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 7, the claim recites “the objective cylinder power” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 7, the claim recites “the confidence level” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 7, the claim recites “the confidence level” which is a subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, it is unclear what is intended by a “confidence level”. Applicant’s specification contains no details on what such feature is, or how it is determined. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art objectively determines cylinder power, such limitation is met.
As to claim 12, which recites “but is not limited to” is exemplary language and thus unclear whether the limitations are required or not (MPEP 2173.05(d)).
As to claim 13, the claim recites “the system of claim 1 is further configured to be connected to a communication network…” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure of the system (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, the metes and bounds are unclear whether the system of claim 1 necessarily possesses such internet connectivity, or if some other component/element is required for such function (MPEP 2173.05(g)) - Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
As to claim 14, the claim recites “the system of claim 1 is further configured to have a video communication channel between the operator and tested subject” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure of the system (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, the metes and bounds are unclear whether the system of claim 1 necessarily possesses such video communication, or if some other component/element is required for such function (MPEP 2173.05(g)) - Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
As to claim 15, the claim recites “the system of claim 1 is further configured to have an audio communication channel between the operator and the tested subject” which is a function that does not follow from the recited structure of the system (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, the metes and bounds are unclear whether the system of claim 1 necessarily possesses such audio communication, or if some other component/element is required for such function (MPEP 2173.05(g)) - Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
As to claim 23, which recites “such as an…” is exemplary language and thus unclear whether the limitations are required or not (MPEP 2173.05(d)).
As to claims 10, 11, 19, 21, the claim limitations “an acquisition control module…to trigger” “voice-controlled module that can use”; “authorization module to secure”; “image module for measuring pupil distances” 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.
A) as to the acquisition control module, Applicant’s specification appears to disclose only a proverbial black box (24a) without the necessary structure, material, acts to perform the function.
B) as to the voice-controlled module, Applicant’s specification fails to disclose any structure, material, acts to perform the function.
C) as to the authorization module, Applicant’s specification appears to disclose only a proverbial black box (33) without the necessary structure, material, acts to perform the function.
D) as to the image module for measuring pupil distances, Applicant’s specification provides a “face scanning system”, however such feature is a computer and associated computer implemented function and does not provide the necessary algorithm to determine the pupil distances (MPEP 2181.II.B - Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting "software" without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function, would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Aristocrat, 521 F.3d at 1334, 86 USPQ2d at 1239; Finisar, 523 F.3d at 1340-41, 86 USPQ2d at 1623).
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.
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.
Claims 1-15, 17-18, 20, 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Seriani (US 2014/0129259).
As to claim 1, Seriani teaches a refraction system for self-refraction or remote refraction of human eyes (Seriani Figs. 1-10), comprising:
a) a phoropter module that allows to place a plurality of optical lenses in front of a tested eye for refractive corrections (Seriani Fig. 4 - 141, 142; para. [0089]);
b) a vision chart module that displays letters or pictures for the tested eye to see and to determine the best corrected visual acuity BCVA by a tested subject (Seriani Fig. 4 - 145; para. [0099]);
c) a computer module that provides control to the refraction system (Seriani Fig. 3 - 10, 110, 130);
d) a communication module that allows a user or an operator to communicate with the computer module (Seriani Fig. 3 - 160; para. [0077]-[0081]), wherein the user is the subject under test and an operator is someone who assists the user (tested subject) for a refraction test, and communicating with the computer module includes recording the best corrected visual acuity for the eye BCVA (Seriani Fig. 3 - 160; para. [0077]-[0081]);
e) a reliable spherocylindrical module (Seriani Fig. 4 - 143, 144; para. [0097]) that allows the refraction system to obtain an initial spherocylindrical correction of the eye, wherein the spherocylindrical error consists of a spherical power (SPH1), and a cylinder power (CYL) and a cylinder (AXIS), wherein the cylinder power (CYL) and a cylinder (AXIS) in known to be accurate and reliable (Seriani Fig. 4 - 143, 144; para. [0097]; [0118] - wavefront aberrometer);
f) a SPH adjustment module (Seriani Fig. 4 - 142; para. [0089]) that allows the user or an operator to adjust spherical power of the phoropter module on top of the initial spherocylindrical correction of the eye so that an updated spherical power (SPH) is subjectively determined (Seriani Fig. 4 - 142; para. [0089]; Fig. 7 - 730; para. [0157]);
g) an output module that allows to present a new refractive prescription that includes the updated spherical power SPH, the cylinder power CYL and cylinder AXIS, and the best corrected visual acuity BCVA (Seriani FIg. 2 - 30A, 20B, 30C, 30D; Fig. 3 - 160, 170; para. [0076]-[0081]).
As to claim 2, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches wherein a plurality of optical lenses are lenses with fixed refractive powers or lenses with refractive properties that are electrically adjusted (Seriani Fig. 3 - 142).
As to claim 3, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches the communication module is a keyboard (Seriani para. [0076], [0077]).
As to claim 4, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches the reliable spherocylindrical module is a lensometer module with which a pair of eyeglasses can be measured, and from which an initial spherocylindrical correction of the tested eyes can be communicated to the computer module (Seriani Fig. 4 - 144).
As to claim 5, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches the reliable spherocylindrical module is an objective refraction module with which the tested eye can be measured for obtaining an initial spherocylindrical correction of the tested eye (Seriani Fig. 4 - 143, 144; para. [0097]; [0118] - wavefront aberrometer).
As to claim 6, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Seriani teaches the objective refraction module is a wavefront aberrometer which measures not only an initial spherocylindrical correction of the tested eye but also all the other optical aberrations in the eye (Seriani para. [0118] - wavefront aberrometer).
As to claim 7, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Seriani teaches include providing a range of cylinder power with the objective cylinder power for at least some eyes (Seriani Fig. 4 - 141, 142, 143, 144; para. [0089], [0090]) or determining a quality metrics for at least one of
a) measuring the confidence level in the objectively determined cylinder power and cylinder axis in addition to the objective sphero-cylinder correction (Seriani Fig. 4 - 141, 142, 143, 144; para. [0089], [0090, [0094]),
b) assessing/displaying quality of vision corrections for a plurality of cylinder power (Seriani Fig. 4 - 141, 142, 143, 144; para. [0089], [0090]).
As to claim 8, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Seriani teaches using the quality metrics to perform a subjective refraction with a phoropter in a plurality of modes: I) one mode for the subjective determination of spherical power only, II) one mode for the subjective determination of both sphere power and cylinder power (Seriani Fig. 4 - 141, 142; para. [0089], [0090], [0135]).
As to claim 9, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Seriani teaches further configured to provide optical vision diagnosis derived from all the other optical aberrations in the eye (Seriani Fig. 2; Fig. 3 - 180, 170, 50, 160; para. [0095]).
As to claim 10, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches further configured to have an acquisition control module for the tested subject to trigger and review wavefront measurements himself or herself (Seriani Fig. 3 - 160, 170; para. [0076], [0077]).
As to claim 11, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches the SPH adjustment module is achieved using one of the following:
a) a knob module that can be turned by the user for changing spherical power of the phoropter module (Seriani Fig. 3 - 160, 170; para. [0076], [0077]);
b) a voice-controlled module that can use user's voice to change spherical power of the phoropter module (Seriani Fig. 3 - 160, 170; para. [0076], [0077]);
c) a plurality of buttons that that can be pushed by the user to change spherical power of the phoropter module (Seriani Fig. 3 - 160, 170; para. [0076], [0077]).
As to claim 12, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches the output module includes but is not limited to a) a printer that is connected to the computer module; b) a display device that is connected to the computer module (Seriani para. [0076], [0086]).
As to claim 13, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches further configured to a communication network and internet for remote refraction (Seriani Fig. 2).
As to claim 14, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches configured to have a video communication channel between the operator and the tested subject (Seriani Fig. 2; para. [0046]).
As to claim 15, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches an audio communication channel between the operator and the tested subject (Seriani Fig. 2; para. [0077]).
As to claim 17, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Seriani teaches an optical shop, ophthalmology business, optometry office, an online business organization (Seriani Fig. 2; para. [0033]).
As to claim 18, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Seriani teaches the system is pladced in an enclosure configured as a kiosk (Seriani para. [0039]).
As to claim 20, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, and Seriani teaches a real-time video monitor system using at least a video camera (Seriani para. [0085]).
As to claim 23, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, and Seriani teaches a retina imaging system (Seriani Fig. 5 - 153; para. [0108]).
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seriani as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lelouch (US 4,070,102).
As to claim 19, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, but doesn’t specify an authorization module to secure a door of the kiosk. In the same field of endeavor Lelouch teaches an eye testing kiosk having an authorization module/lock (Lelouch Fig. 1 - 6; col. 5:49-51). 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 lock since, as taught by Lelouch, such locks are well known to secure doors of kiosks (Lelouch Fig. 1 - 6; col. 5:49-51).
Claims 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Seriani as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Lastinger et al. (US 2018/0108436 - Lastinger).
As to claim 21, Seriani teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 18, but doesn’t specify an image module for measuring pupil distances of the tested eyes. In the same field of endeavor Lastinger teaches an imaging module (Lastinger Fig. 5 - 504) for measuring pupil distances of the tested eyes (Lastinger Fig. 5 - 504; para. [0045], [0048]). 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 interpupillary distance measurement since, as taught by Lastinger, such data allows for assisting with fitting glasses (Lastinger para. [0005], [0045]).
As to claim 22, Seriani in view of Lastinger teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 21, and Lastinger further teaches the image module is further configured as a face scanner module (Lastinger Fig. 5 - 504; para. [0048]) that acquire image of the tested subject in a plurality of perspectives (Lastinger Fig. 5 - 504; para. [0048]), wherein the acquired images can be used for trying-on eyeglasses frames online (Lastinger para. [0049]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lastinger et al. (US 11,189,366); Seriani (US 9,230,062); Dyer (US 5,914,772); Marino et al. (US 2004/0141152); Franz et al. (US 2003/0117580) are cited as additional examples of systems for self/remote refraction.
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 January 8, 2026