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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 12th, 2023 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 3 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 2, “visual targets are presented are different” should be “visual targets presented are different”.
Claim 19, line 2, “visual targets are presented are different” should be “visual targets presented are different”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-3, 6, 11-12, 17-19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Donaldson (US 2017/0049316).
Regarding claim 1, Donaldson discloses a contrast-sensitivity test device (Figs. 1-3, element 1) comprising:
an illumination unit (5) that emits illumination light such that a field of view of a subject is in a specified illumination environment ([0060], “a retinal display unit that projects light directly into a patient's eye or eyes”);
a visual target presentation unit (3) that is located within the field of view of the subject and that switches and sequentially presents a plurality of visual targets having different contrasts ([0035], “visual characteristics of each visual field target vary depending on the position of the visual field target on the display, the visual characteristics comprising at least one of the size, shape, colour and/or contrast.”);
a response-time measurement unit (9, [0084], “That is, the time taken between presentation of the visual field target 11 and movement of the cursor 21 to the target region 15 of the boundary 17 by the patient 7 may be recorded”, [0063], “A circular cursor 21 is also displayed and is moveable by the patient 7 by operating the patient input device 9”, examiner interprets this to mean that the input device 9 used to move the cursor is the measurement unit for response time) that, when the illumination light is emitted, measures a response time after each visual target is presented until the subject recognizes the visual target ([0037], “Preferably, the step of recording the brightness and/or contrast level of a visual field target at the time of detection comprises accounting for the reaction time of the patient.”); and
a casing that houses the illumination unit, the visual target presentation unit, and the response-time measurement unit (as shown in Fig. 1, there is a casing housing the presentation unit and illumination unit as head worn by the user, and there is a casing that houses the measurement unit as the tablet).
Regarding claim 2, Donaldson further discloses wherein
the visual target presentation unit (3) presents a reference visual target approximately at a center portion of the field of view of the subject (Fig. 2, element 19) and presents each visual target at a position different from the position of the reference visual target for a specified time ([0068], “a first visual field target 11 on the display 3 at a first known position”).
Regarding claim 3, Donaldson further discloses wherein
the positions at which the plurality of visual targets (Fig. 2, elements 11 and 19) presented are different from one another (as shown in Fig. 2, targets 11 and 19 are at different spots).
Regarding claim 6, Donaldson further discloses wherein
the response-time measurement unit (9) includes an input unit that receives an input from the subject ([0060], “a patient input device 9 connected to a computer 1”), and
the response-time measurement unit measures the time after each visual target is presented ([0084], “the reaction time of the patient may be recorded”) until the input unit receives an input, as the response time ([0067], “patient is prompted to begin the test by moving the cursor 21 to the home target spot 19 using the user input device 9. The patient is also instructed to move the cursor from the home target 19 towards any presented visual field target they subsequently see”).
Regarding claim 11, Donaldson further discloses wherein
the visual target presentation unit (3) includes an image display device that displays an image of each visual target ([0062], “being displayed on the display 3 to the patient”).
Regarding claim 12, Donaldson further discloses wherein
the visual target presentation unit (3) includes
a screen ([0061], “conventional large display screens … projector systems”, a conventional projector system projects an image onto a screen) and
a projection device that projects and displays each visual target on the screen ([0061], “projector systems”).
Regarding claim 17, Donaldson discloses a contrast-sensitivity test method (Figs. 1-3, element 1) comprising:
emitting illumination light such that a field of view of a subject is in a specified illumination environment ([0060], “a retinal display unit that projects light directly into a patient's eye or eyes”);
switching and sequentially presenting a plurality of visual targets having different contrasts in the field of view of the subject ([0035], “visual characteristics of each visual field target vary depending on the position of the visual field target on the display, the visual characteristics comprising at least one of the size, shape, colour and/or contrast.”, [0036], “increasing the brightness of the visual field target and/or the contrast of the visual field target relative to the background display over a period of time”); and
measuring, when the illumination light is emitted, a response time after each visual target is presented until the subject recognizes the visual target ([0037], “Preferably, the step of recording the brightness and/or contrast level of a visual field target at the time of detection comprises accounting for the reaction time of the patient.”).
Regarding claim 18, Donaldson further discloses wherein
the presenting the plurality of visual targets in the field of view of the subject (Fig. 2) presents a reference visual target approximately at a center portion of the field of view of the subject (Fig. 2, element 19) and presents each visual target at a position different from the position of the reference visual target for a specified time ([0068], “a first visual field target 11 on the display 3 at a first known position”).
Regarding claim 19, Donaldson further discloses wherein
the positions at which the plurality of visual targets (Fig. 2, elements 11 and 19) presented are different from one another (as shown in Fig. 2, targets 11 and 19 are at different spots).
Regarding claim 22, Donaldson further discloses wherein
the measuring each response time ([0037], “step of recording the brightness and/or contrast level of a visual field target … accounting for the reaction time of the patient”) includes
receiving an input from the subject ([0060], “a patient input device 9 connected to a computer 1”), and
measuring the time after each visual target is presented until the input is received, as the response time ([0084], “the reaction time of the patient may be recorded”).
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.
Claims 4-5 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2017/0049316) in view of Aibara (US 2023/0255477).
Regarding claim 4, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 3 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the response-time measurement unit detects a first line of sight when the subject visually recognizes the reference visual target and a second line of sight when the subject visually recognizes each visual target, determines a line-of-sight vector from the first line of sight and the second line of sight, and measures the response time from the line-of-sight vector.
However Aibara, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the response-time measurement unit (Figs. 1-7, element 30) detects a first line of sight when the subject visually recognizes the reference visual target (Fig. 7, First response) and a second line of sight when the subject visually recognizes each visual target (Third response), determines a line-of-sight vector from the first line of sight and the second line of sight, and measures the response time from the line-of-sight vector ([0074], “testing being carried out as a function of time in terms of a first response, second response, and third response as shown in FIG. 7, for example”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the wherein the response-time measurement unit detects a first line of sight when the subject visually recognizes the reference visual target and a second line of sight when the subject visually recognizes each visual target, determines a line-of-sight vector from the first line of sight and the second line of sight, and measures the response time from the line-of-sight vector as taught by Aibara, for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the testing ([0073]).
Regarding claim 5, modified Donaldson teaches as is set forth in claim 4 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the response-time measurement unit includes three or more IR illumination devices each of which emits testing light toward an eyeball of the subject, an image capturing device that captures a reflected image formed by the testing light reflected on the eyeball, and a line-of-sight vector calculation unit that calculates the line-of-sight vector from the reflected image.
However Aibara, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the response-time measurement unit includes three or more IR illumination devices (Figs. 1-7, elements 18a-18b for each eye totals of 4 devices) each of which emits testing light toward an eyeball of the subject ([0038], “near-infrared light which is nonvisible light that is irradiated from emitter 18”), an image capturing device that captures a reflected image formed by the testing light reflected on the eyeball ([0037], “Camera 15 might be a near-infrared camera for capturing images of the eyes of the user”), and a line-of-sight vector calculation unit that calculates the line-of-sight vector from the reflected image ([0034], “equipped with line of sight detection functionality for cooperating with line of sight detection unit 31”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson in view of Aibara with the wherein the response-time measurement unit includes three or more IR illumination devices each of which emits testing light toward an eyeball of the subject, an image capturing device that captures a reflected image formed by the testing light reflected on the eyeball, and a line-of-sight vector calculation unit that calculates the line-of-sight vector from the reflected image as taught by Aibara, for the purpose of efficiently testing based on line of sight ([0021]).
Regarding claim 20, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 19 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the measuring each response time includes detecting a first line of sight when the subject visually recognizes the reference visual target and a second line of sight when the subject visually recognizes each visual target, determining a line-of-sight vector from the first line of sight and the second line of sight, and measuring the response time from the line-of-sight vector.
However Aibara, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the measuring each response time (Figs. 1 and 7) includes detecting a first line of sight when the subject visually recognizes the reference visual target (Fig. 7, First response) and a second line of sight when the subject visually recognizes each visual target (Third response), determining a line-of-sight vector from the first line of sight and the second line of sight, and measuring the response time from the line-of-sight vector ([0074], “testing being carried out as a function of time in terms of a first response, second response, and third response as shown in FIG. 7, for example”)..
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the wherein the measuring each response time includes detecting a first line of sight when the subject visually recognizes the reference visual target and a second line of sight when the subject visually recognizes each visual target, determining a line-of-sight vector from the first line of sight and the second line of sight, and measuring the response time from the line-of-sight vector as taught by Aibara, for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the testing ([0073]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Donaldson teaches as is set forth in claim 20 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the measuring each response time includes emitting testing light toward an eyeball of the subject, capturing a reflected image formed by the testing light reflected on the eyeball, and calculating the line-of-sight vector from the reflected image.
However Aibara, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the measuring each response time includes emitting testing light toward an eyeball of the subject (Figs. 1-7, elements 18a-18b, [0038], “near-infrared light which is nonvisible light that is irradiated from emitter 18”), capturing a reflected image formed by the testing light reflected on the eyeball ([0037], “Camera 15 might be a near-infrared camera for capturing images of the eyes of the user”), and calculating the line-of-sight vector from the reflected image ([0034], “equipped with line of sight detection functionality for cooperating with line of sight detection unit 31”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson in view of Aibara with the wherein the measuring each response time includes emitting testing light toward an eyeball of the subject, capturing a reflected image formed by the testing light reflected on the eyeball, and calculating the line-of-sight vector from the reflected image as taught by Aibara, for the purpose of efficiently testing based on line of sight ([0021]).
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2017/0049316) in view of PUELL MARÍN (WO2021209669A1, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 7, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the illumination unit emits the illumination light toward an eyeball of the subject such that the subject feels dazzled.
However PUELL MARÍN, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the illumination unit emits the illumination light toward an eyeball of the subject such that the subject feels dazzled ([0018-0019], “method for measuring the dynamics of mesopic contrast sensitivity recovery in a subject's or patient's eye comprises the following stages: To temporarily dazzle one of the subject's eyes in order to bleach the visual pigments of the retina”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the wherein the illumination unit emits the illumination light toward an eyeball of the subject such that the subject feels dazzled as taught by PUELL MARÍN, for the purpose of detecting and differentiating alterations in visual function ([0017]).
Regarding claim 23, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the illumination light is emitted toward an eyeball of the subject such that the subject feels dazzled.
However PUELL MARÍN, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the illumination light is emitted toward an eyeball of the subject such that the subject feels dazzled ([0018-0019], “method for measuring the dynamics of mesopic contrast sensitivity recovery in a subject's or patient's eye comprises the following stages: To temporarily dazzle one of the subject's eyes in order to bleach the visual pigments of the retina”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the wherein the illumination light is emitted toward an eyeball of the subject such that the subject feels dazzled as taught by PUELL MARÍN, for the purpose of detecting and differentiating alterations in visual function ([0017]).
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2017/0049316) in view of Su (US 6,361,167).
Regarding claim 8, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the illumination unit is configured such that the color temperature of the illumination light is changeable.
However Su, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the illumination unit (Figs. 1-5, element 42) is configured such that the color temperature of the illumination light is changeable (Col. 8, lines 3-5, “The light is coupled into the entrance of fiber optical cable 39 by a lens 40 after passing through an optical filter 41 to properly adjust the color temperature of the light.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the wherein the illumination unit is configured such that the color temperature of the illumination light is changeable as taught by Su, for the purpose of obtaining the correct color temperature of light (Col. 8, lines 3-5).
Regarding claim 24, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the color temperature of the illumination light is changeable.
However Su, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the color temperature of the illumination light is changeable (Col. 8, lines 3-5, “The light is coupled into the entrance of fiber optical cable 39 by a lens 40 after passing through an optical filter 41 to properly adjust the color temperature of the light.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the wherein the color temperature of the illumination light is changeable as taught by Su, for the purpose of obtaining the correct color temperature of light (Col. 8, lines 3-5).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2017/0049316) in view of Aibara (US 2023/0255477), further in view of Mihashi (US 2004/0095556).
Regarding claim 10, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 5 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the image capturing device captures an image of an eyeball of the subject and the periphery of the eyeball, and the contrast-sensitivity test device further comprises an image processing unit that calculates at least one of the palpebral fissure width and the pupil diameter of the subject from data of the image captured by the image capturing device.
However Mihashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the image capturing device (220) captures an image of an eyeball of the subject and the periphery of the eyeball ([0059], “The pupil diameter measuring and calculating part 220 processes and recognizes the image of the anterior ocular segment 401 received by the photoreceptor 201 and outputs the diameter of the pupil on real time”), and the contrast-sensitivity test device further comprises an image processing unit that calculates at least one of the palpebral fissure width and the pupil diameter of the subject from data of the image captured by the image capturing device ([0059], “The pupil diameter measuring and calculating part 220 processes and recognizes the image of the anterior ocular segment 401 received by the photoreceptor 201 and outputs the diameter of the pupil on real time”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson in view of Aibara with the wherein the image capturing device captures an image of an eyeball of the subject and the periphery of the eyeball, and the contrast-sensitivity test device further comprises an image processing unit that calculates at least one of the palpebral fissure width and the pupil diameter of the subject from data of the image captured by the image capturing device as taught by Mihashi, for the purpose of precisely determining eye aberrations ([0001]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2017/0049316) in view of Andrea (US 5,216,458).
Regarding claim 13, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the visual target presentation unit includes a plurality of screens on each of which a different one of the visual targets is displayed, and the screens are switched and sequentially placed within the field of view of the subject.
However Andrea, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the visual target presentation unit includes a plurality of screens on each of which a different one of the visual targets is displayed (Figs. 1-6, elements 14a-14e), and the screens are switched and sequentially placed within the field of view of the subject (Col. 3, lines 52-56, “film units 14a-e, and may be rotated about its axis 17 to sequentially position each of the individual film components in front of the light source”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the wherein the visual target presentation unit includes a plurality of screens on each of which a different one of the visual targets is displayed, and the screens are switched and sequentially placed within the field of view of the subject as taught by Andrea, for the purpose of sequentially showing different targets (Col. 3, lines 52-56).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2017/0049316) in view of Artigas Verde (US 2007/0236666).
Regarding claim 14, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein each visual target has an approximately circular shape in which brightness varies according to a two-dimensional Gaussian function.
However Artigas Verde, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein each visual target has an approximately circular shape (Fig. 2, lower left shows an approximate circular shape) in which brightness varies according to a two-dimensional Gaussian function ([0071], “Gaussians that modulate the grids were chosen with standard deviations, .alpha., equal to about 1/6 of the image size, with this subtending about 5.degree. by default”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the wherein each visual target has an approximately circular shape in which brightness varies according to a two-dimensional Gaussian function as taught by Artigas Verde, for the purpose of determining campimetry thresholds in a single session ([0075]).
Regarding claim 15, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose wherein the visual targets include a striped pattern in which a white line and a black line are repeated alternately.
However Artigas Verde, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches wherein the visual targets include a striped pattern in which a white line and a black line are repeated alternately (as shown in Fig. 2, top left shows an alternating black and white pattern).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the wherein the visual targets include a striped pattern in which a white line and a black line are repeated alternately as taught by Artigas Verde, for the purpose of determining campimetry thresholds in a single session ([0075]).
Claims 16 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Donaldson (US 2017/0049316) in view of Mihashi (US 2004/0095556).
Regarding claim 16, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 1 rejection above but does not specifically disclose an optical-element evaluation device comprising: the contrast-sensitivity test device; and an optical element that is placed in front of an eyeball of the subject so as to be replaceable.
However Mihashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches an optical-element evaluation device ([0001], “determining the aberrations of an eye of a subject at the time of a laser optical surgery or improvement of visual acuity with glasses or contact lenses”) comprising: the contrast-sensitivity test device (Fig. 1, element 100); and an optical element that is placed in front of an eyeball of the subject so as to be replaceable ([0102], “when the subject wears polarized glasses, a full-fledged stereoscopic test can be performed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the optical-element evaluation device comprising: the contrast-sensitivity test device; and an optical element that is placed in front of an eyeball of the subject so as to be replaceable as taught by Mihashi, for the purpose of determining improvement of visual acuity with glasses ([0001]).
Regarding claim 25, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above but does not specifically disclose further comprising capturing an image of an eyeball of the subject and the periphery of the eyeball and calculating at least one of the palpebral fissure width and the pupil diameter of the subject from data of the captured image.
However Mihashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches further comprising capturing an image of an eyeball of the subject and the periphery of the eyeball and calculating at least one of the palpebral fissure width and the pupil diameter of the subject from data of the captured image ([0059], “The pupil diameter measuring and calculating part 220 processes and recognizes the image of the anterior ocular segment 401 received by the photoreceptor 201 and outputs the diameter of the pupil on real time”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the further comprising capturing an image of an eyeball of the subject and the periphery of the eyeball and calculating at least one of the palpebral fissure width and the pupil diameter of the subject from data of the captured image as taught by Mihashi, for the purpose of precisely determining eye aberrations ([0001]).
Regarding claim 26, Donaldson discloses as is set forth in claim 17 rejection above but does not specifically disclose an optical-element evaluation method comprising the contrast-sensitivity test method, further comprising placing an optical element in front of an eyeball of the subject.
However Mihashi, in the same field of endeavor because both teach a test device, teaches an optical-element evaluation method ([0001], “determining the aberrations of an eye of a subject at the time of a laser optical surgery or improvement of visual acuity with glasses or contact lenses”) comprising the contrast-sensitivity test method (Fig. 1, element 100), further comprising placing an optical element in front of an eyeball of the subject ([0102], “when the subject wears polarized glasses, a full-fledged stereoscopic test can be performed”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the contrast-sensitivity test device of Donaldson with the optical-element evaluation device comprising: the contrast-sensitivity test device; and an optical element that is placed in front of an eyeball of the subject so as to be replaceable as taught by Mihashi, for the purpose of determining improvement of visual acuity with glasses ([0001]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 9, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the illumination unit includes a plurality of LED elements that emit light similar to natural light, a diffusion plate that diffuses the light emitted from the plurality of LED elements, and a color-temperature conversion filter that converts the light having passed through the diffusion plate, into the illumination light having a specified color temperature, and the color-temperature conversion filter is replaceable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Greivenkamp (US 2017/0273553), LEINONEN (US 2017/0042418), Hirohara (US 2003/0164923), Lawton (US 6,045,515) teach a contrast-sensitivity test device comprising: an illumination unit that emits illumination light such that a field of view of a subject is in a specified illumination environment; a visual target presentation unit that is located within the field of view of the subject and that switches and sequentially presents a plurality of visual targets having different contrasts; and a response-time measurement unit that, when the illumination light is emitted, measures a response time after each visual target is presented until the subject recognizes the visual target.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270 - 1284. 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 18 February 2026