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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/12/2024, 07/15/2025, 08/27/2025 and 09/15/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
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 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-8, 19 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barbur et al. (US PUB 2010/0165294; herein after “Barbur”) in view of He et al. (US PUB 2015/0199006; herein after “He”).
Barbur and He disclose vision testing to assess visual performance like the color vision characteristics. Therefore, they are analogous art.
Regarding claim 1, Barbur teaches a test image set for testing visual characteristics of a subject (see para. [0001]), the test image set including a plurality of test images (see para. [0043] and a series of images as shown at least in FIG. 5(b)), wherein each of the plurality of test images includes: a background area (a lighter background region 33, FIG. 5b); and a test area (a dark central region 32) located in the background area (see FIG. 5b), the test area including a figure (a letter or a test (coloured) target or the central dark region 32 (in FIG. 5b), see para. [0005] and [0067]) having a color different from a color of the background area in at least one of R, G or B components in a RGB color space (i.e., the luminance of the dark central region is affected as the size of the lighter background region is varied, see para. [0057] and to calculate the luminances of the red, green and blue primaries needed to reproduce any specified luminance, see para. [0060]), wherein the test area is located in such a manner that light emitted from the test area forms an image (i.e., to capture light emitted by the display 9 to form a test image displayed only within the generally central viewing region 25, para. [0054] and [0055], FIG. 3) within a fovea centralis of the subject when the subject looks at around a center of the test image (i.e. the amount of light (or radiant flux) of a given wavelength per unit solid angle per unit area of the display that is emitted in a given direction (e.g., a fovea centralis of the subject) … only from one display primary light (e.g., central test area) see para. [0059], also see para. [0060]), wherein a color of an area, in the test area, where the figure is not located has the same color as the color of the background area (i.e., as successive images may only be very slightly different from one another (e.g. same color), para. [0053] … test images are displayed only within the generally central viewing region 25 as test area of the viewing area 27 as background (within which region the non-uniformities are lowest e.g., same color)), and wherein the plurality of test images are different from each other in the color of at least one of the background area or the figure (i.e., the test to be undertaken should involve the display of backgrounds at different luminances, see para. [0058], and as shown in FIG. 5b, three illustrative images are different from each other, see para. [0057]).
Barbur teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of the test area is located in such a manner that light emitted from the test area forms an image within a fovea centralis of the subject.
However, in a related field of endeavor He teaches FIG. 25A shows a captured user's eye image including images of four reference light sources for detecting screen center coordinates of a display screen, para. [0128]. The right image in FIG. 25B shows the captured eye image which includes user's eye cornea (fovea) image 331, eye pupil image 333, para. [0131].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Barbur such that a captured eye image which includes user's eye cornea for detecting screen center coordinates (fovea centralis) of a display screen, as taught by He such that by moving the eye so that small parts of a scene can be sensed with greater resolution using the visual processing functionality of the nervous system more efficiently.
Regarding claim 2, Barbur according to claim 1 further teaches a luminance of the color of the figure is different from a luminance of the color of the background area in at least one particular component among the R, G and B components (i.e., as illustrated in FIG. 4 the luminance of the red, green and blue (RGB) primaries is a non-linear function (e.g., different color), para. [0051], also see para. [0058]).
Regarding claim 3, Barbur according to claim 2 further teaches magnitudes of two components other than the particular component among the R, G and B components of the color of the figure are the same as each other (i.e., the background surrounding the viewing region is set to have a luminance and chromaticity which is at least similar (same color) to that employed in the test that the user is to undertake, para. [0058], also see para. [0051] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Barbur according to claim 1 further teaches the plurality of test images in which colors of the background areas are the same as each other and colors of the figures are different from each other (i.e., to calculate, based on said characterizing data, the luminances of red, green and blue (different colors) display primaries that are required for the faithful display of the luminance and chromaticity triplets of said reference test, para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 5, Barbur according to claim 1 further teaches the plurality of test images in which colors of the background areas are different from each other (i.e., to calculate, based on said characterizing data, the luminances of red, green and blue (different colors) display primaries that are required for the faithful display of the luminance and chromaticity triplets of said reference test, para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 6, Barbur according to claim 5 further teaches the plurality of test images in which magnitudes of one of the R, G and B components of colors of the figures are different from each other (i.e., to calculate, based on said characterizing data, the luminances of red, green and blue (different colors) display primaries that are required for the faithful display of the luminance and chromaticity magnitudes (color magnitudes) triplets of said reference test, para. [0028]).
Regarding claim 7, Barbur according to claim 5 further teaches magnitudes of two components among the R, G and B components of the color of the figure are the same as each other (i.e., the background surrounding the viewing region is set to have a luminance and chromaticity (color magnitudes) which is at least similar (same color) to that employed in the test that the user is to undertake, para. [0058], also see para. [0051] and [0060]).
Regarding claim 8, Barbur according to claim 1 further teaches the background area has a chromatic color (e.g., chromatic sensitivity, para. 0006]).
Regarding claim 27, Barbur teaches the test image set for testing the visual characteristics according to claim 1 (as set forth in claim 1 above), wherein the figure has a circular shape (a circular dark central region 32, see FIG. 5b).
Regarding claim 19, Barbur teaches a test image set for testing visual characteristics of a subject (see para. [0001]), the test image set including a plurality of test images (see para. [0043] and a series of images as shown at least in FIG. 5(b)) wherein each of the plurality of test images includes: a background area (a lighter background region 33, FIG. 5b); and a test area (a dark central region 32) located in the background area (see FIG. 5b), wherein the plurality of test images include: a plurality of red color test images each of which has a figure located in a corresponding test area (a letter or a test (coloured) target or the central dark region 32 (in FIG. 5b), see para. [0005] and [0067]), each figure having a color different from a color of a corresponding background area in an R component in an RGB color space (i.e., vision test according to a paper entitled "Insights into the different exploits of colour in the visual cortex" by J. L. Barbur, A. J. Harlow, and G. T. Plant. (published in Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 258 (1353):327-334, 19944). The test described in this paper used CAD (Colour Assessment & Diagnosis) to measure red-green and yellow-blue chromatic sensitivity. The paper also describes how background modulation techniques can be used to isolate the use of colour signals, a prime requirement in colour vision testing, para. [0006]), the R components of the figures in the plurality of red color test images being different from each other (i.e., as illustrated in FIG. 4 the luminance of the red, green and blue (RGB) primaries is a non-linear function (e.g., different color), para. [0051], also see para. [0058]); and a plurality of green color test images each of which has a figure located in a corresponding test area (a letter or a test (coloured) target or the central dark region 32 (in FIG. 5b), see para. [0005] and [0067]), each figure having a color different from a color of a corresponding background area in a G component in the RGB color space (i.e., vision test according to a paper entitled "Insights into the different exploits of colour in the visual cortex" by J. L. Barbur, A. J. Harlow, and G. T. Plant. (published in Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. Biol. Sci. 258 (1353):327-334, 19944). The test described in this paper used CAD (Colour Assessment & Diagnosis) to measure red-green and yellow-blue chromatic sensitivity. The paper also describes how background modulation techniques can be used to isolate the use of colour signals, a prime requirement in colour vision testing, para. [0006]), the G components of the figures in the plurality of green color test images being different from each other (i.e., to calculate, based on said characterizing data, the luminances of red, green and blue (different colors) display primaries that are required for the faithful display of the luminance and chromaticity triplets of said reference test, para. [0028]).
Barbur teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of each figure having a color different from a color of a corresponding background area in an R component in an RGB color space, and each figure having a color different from a color of a corresponding background area in a G component in the RGB color space
However, in a related field of endeavor He teaches the multiple (e.g., three) light sources can emit colored light of different colors, e.g., in which the colored light can include red light, green light, blue light, and yellow light, or any combination thereof, different wavelengths, and/or different modulations of frequency, para. [0072]. The method includes a process to receive at least a partial retroreflection of the three types of light emitted by each of the three light sources that is retroreflected from the eye using the exemplary camera. For example, the distance is configured such that the camera can receive at least partial of the retro-reflections from all light sources. For example, the three light sources can emit colored light of the same or differing colors, or in other examples, infrared light to avoid stimulating the user, para. [0074].
display screen, para. [0128]. The right image in FIG. 25B shows the captured eye image which includes user's eye cornea (fovea) image 331, eye pupil image 333, para. [0131].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Barbur such that the colored light can include red light, green light, blue light, and yellow light, or any combination such as Red-Green thereof, different wavelengths, and/or different modulations of frequency, as taught by He such that the sources emit colored light of the same or differing colors, or in other examples, infrared light to avoid stimulating the user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-18 and 20-26 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the test area is located in such a manner that light emitted from the test area forms an image within a viewing angle of the subject of 2 degrees with respect to a center of a retina of the subject when the subject looks at around a center of the test image.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the test method for visual characteristics comprising: sequentially showing the test images included in the test image set to the subject; determining whether a particular test condition is satisfied when the subject looks at each of the test images sequentially shown in the showing; and specifying, among the test images included in the test image set, a test image that satisfies the particular test condition.
Claims 11-18 depend upon allowable claim 10.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the test method for visual characteristics comprising: sequentially showing the plurality of red color test images to the subject; determining whether a particular test condition is satisfied when the subject looks at each of the plurality of red color test images sequentially shown; and specifying, among the plurality of red color test images, a red color test image that satisfies the particular test condition sequentially showing the plurality of green color test images to the subject; determining whether the particular test condition is satisfied when the subject looks each of at the plurality of green color test images sequentially shown; and specifying, among the plurality of green color test images, a green color test image that satisfies the particular test condition, and determining a ratio of a sensitivity to red light to a sensitivity to green light of the subject based on the R component of the figure of the specified red color test image and the G component of the figure of the specified green color test image.
Regarding claim 21, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the determining method comprising: sequentially showing the test images included in the test image set to the subject; determining whether a particular test condition is satisfied when the subject looks at each of the test images sequentially shown; specifying, among the test images, at least one test image that satisfies the particular test condition; and determining transmittance of a correction filter configured to adjust an intensity of transmitted light based on a color of the specified at least one test image.
Claim 24 depend upon allowable claim 21.
Regarding claim 22, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the determining method comprising: sequentially showing the test images included in the test image set to the subject; determining whether a particular test condition is satisfied when the subject looks at each of the test images sequentially shown; and specifying, among the test images, at least one test image that satisfies the particular test condition, wherein the particular condition includes a first test condition where the subject can recognize the figure located in the test area of the test image when the subject looks at the test image, and wherein the determining method further comprises determining transmittance of a particular wavelength band of a correction filter configured to adjust an intensity of transmitted light based on color(s) of the background area of the specified at least one test image.
Claim 25 depend upon allowable claim 22.
Regarding claim 23, the prior art does not teach, or renders obvious, regarding the determining method comprising: sequentially showing the test images included in the test image set to the subject; determining whether a particular test condition is satisfied when the subject looks at each of the test images sequentially shown; and specifying, among the test images, at least one test image that satisfies the particular test condition, wherein the particular test condition includes a second test condition where the subject can recognize difference between the color of the background area and the color of the figure when the subject looks at the test image, and wherein the determining method further comprises determining transmittance of a particular wavelength band of a correction filter configured to adjust an intensity of transmitted light based on color(s) of the background area(s) of the test image(s) which specified in the test method, wherein, in the test image satisfying the second test condition, the determined transmittance is higher as a magnitude of a particular color component of the background area and a magnitude of the particular color component of the figure become closer.
Claim 26 depend upon allowable claim 23.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Simmons (US PUB 20200310537) teaches “Methods and devices for improving visual perception in challenging vision environments and for some with low vision conditions (including age related macular degeneration, AMD) are disclosed. A plurality of frequently co-pathological conditions that together make undistorted, clear and bright vision challenging are dealt with by managing the nature, amounts and patterns of light reaching the eyes while managing the sensitivity and dynamic ranges of the eyes. For example, the sensitivity of chromophore response to particular wavelengths and the instant status of the visual transduction system are, in some embodiments, measured, monitored and managed.”, see Abstract.
Sachtler (US 6851809) teaches “A method for testing a plurality of regions in a color space to identify any of, or a subcombination of, the following color vision deficiencies: protanopia, deuteranopia, tritanopia, and related anomalies. A set of distractor colors is distributed across a region of color space such that the confusion line through a single target color intersects approximately the middle of the set. The distractor set spans a region extending in both chromaticity and luminance, which provides leeway for display errors since the confusion line will intersect the set even if colors do not render exactly as specified, and color deficient observers would still not be able to identify the target. A web-based implementation enables remote testing of subjects while detecting calibration errors of the display device.”, see Abstract.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
March 4, 2026