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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 11-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Samec (WO 2016149416 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Samec discloses (see at least [0423]-[0475], Fig 17A-Fig 17F) an eye examination system ([0423], ophthalmic system used for a visual acuity test) comprising: a headset configured to be positioned against a user's head ([0429], augmented reality display device 62 configured to project light 38 that is directed into the eyes of a user to form images in the eye of the user for the user's viewing), the headset (62) having a housing (108) containing a lens (106) and a display (Fig 5, [0121], [0140], LCD; 106 that may be mounted to user’s head or eyes by housing 108) operable to display an image to an eye of the user ([0436], image displayed by ophthalmic device; [0437], image content presented on display); and a long-pass filter arranged between the lens (106) and the eye for examining the eye's ability to see the image (Fig 17B, [0437], occluder 1730a having a pinhole 1735a positioned such that light rays from person 1721 are viewed by the eye), the long-pass filter (1730a) having a first transmission region (1735a) that transmits a visible light and a near-infrared light to the eye (Fig 17B, [0437]) and a second transmission region ([0437], ophthalmic system may implement an occluder (1730a) having a pinhole (1735a) located along the line of sight optical axis of the eye) that transmits the near-infrared light and blocks the visible light (Fig 17B, [0437], pinhole occluder operates as an aperture or field stop that stops down [at least visible] light from the peripheral).
Regarding claim 2, Samec discloses wherein the first transmission region comprises a number of pinholes formed through the long-pass filter (Fig 17E, [0460], multiple pinhole occluder).
Regarding claim 3, Samec discloses wherein the first transmission regions comprises a number of etched regions on the long-pass filter ([0437], implement pinhole of occluder 1730a).
Regarding claim 4, Samec discloses wherein the transmission of near-infrared light through the first transmission region and the second transmission region is substantially equal ([0443], dual capture visible light / infrared light cameras).
Regarding claim 5, Samec discloses wherein the second transmission region surrounds the first transmission region (Fig 17B shows occluder 1730a surrounding pinhole 1735a).
Regarding claim 6, Samec discloses wherein the long-pass filter is permanently coupled to the headset ([0430], pinhole occluder 1730a may be incorporated into an ophthalmic system, as part of display device 62).
Regarding claim 7, Samec discloses wherein the long-pass filter is removably coupled to the headset ([0430], pinhole occluder 1730 may be a separate component that may be positioned onto the ophthalmic system).
Regarding claim 11, Samec discloses (see at least [0423]-[0475], Fig 17A-Fig 17F) an eye examination system ([0423], ophthalmic system used for a visual acuity test) comprising: a headset configured to be positioned against a user's head ([0429], augmented reality display device 62 configured to project light 38 that is directed into the eyes of a user to form images in the eye of the user for the user's viewing), the headset (62) having a housing (108) containing a lens (106) and a display (Fig 5, [0121], [0140], LCD; 106 that may be mounted to user’s head or eyes by housing 108) operable to display an image to an eye of the user ([0436], image displayed by ophthalmic device; [0437], image content presented on display); a long-pass filter arranged between the lens (106) and the eye for examining the eye's ability to see the image (Fig 17B, [0437], occluder 1730a having a pinhole 1735a positioned such that light rays from person 1721 are viewed by the eye), the long-pass filter (1730a) having a first transmission region (1735a) that transmits a visible light and a near-infrared light to the eye (Fig 17B, [0437]) and a second transmission region ([0437], ophthalmic system may implement an occluder (1730a) having a pinhole (1735a) located along the line of sight optical axis of the eye) that transmits the near-infrared light and blocks the visible light (Fig 17B, [0437], pinhole occluder operates as an aperture or field stop that stops down [at least visible] light from the peripheral) and one or more processors (processing module 70) communicatively coupled to the headset and to memory storing instructions that, when executed ([0458], receives inputs 1710), configure the one or more processors to receive a response regarding the eye's ability to see the image and determine a visual acuity of the eye (Fig 17D, [0450], local processing module (70), for example, by executing logic devices to perform instructions stored in a digital memory operatively connected to the local processing module. Process flow 1700 may be performed by an ophthalmic device).
Regarding claim 12, Samec discloses wherein the instructions further configure the one or more processors to determine a measurement of a sharpness of the image seen by the user's eye based on the response, and the measurement is used to determine the visual acuity of the eye ([0269], image shown to the weaker eye can be altered to be made more interesting or compelling to the wearer (e.g., brightened, color-enhanced, three-dimensionally enhanced, sharpened focus, higher resolution, enhanced contrast, moving, higher refresh rate, etc.)).
Regarding claim 13, Samec discloses further comprising an eye tracking assembly having an emitter that emits the near-infrared light to the eye and a camera for tracking a movement of the eye based on a reflection of the near-infrared light ([447], eye tracking system utilizing inward facing cameras 26 (e.g., cameras 24) to track an eye), and wherein the tracked movement of the eye is used to select an operation of the headset ([0474], eye tracking system (e.g., cameras 24) to determine whether a user is struggling to view an image to adjust the vision correction (modify the pinhole occluder requirements)).
Regarding claim 14, Samec discloses further comprising a dichroic filter ([0753], display (62), may comprise a light-emitting module 27 (dichroic lamps) to selectively administer light based on a treatment protocol), and wherein the dichroic filter and the eye tracking assembly are positioned between the long-pass filter and the display (Fig 5, [0121]-[0122]).
Regarding claim 15, Samec discloses wherein the first transmission region comprises a pinhole formed through the long-pass filter (Fig 17B, [0437], pinhole 1735a).
Regarding claim 16, Samec discloses wherein the first transmission regions comprises an etched region on the long-pass filter ([0437], implement pinhole of occluder 1730a).
Regarding claim 17, Samec discloses wherein the second transmission region entirely surrounds the first transmission region (Fig 17B shows occluder 1730a surrounding pinhole 1735a).
Regarding claim 18, Samec discloses wherein the second transmission region blocks the visible light impinging on the filter from the display (Fig 17B, [0437], pinhole occluder operates as an aperture or field stop that stops down at least visible light from the peripheral).
Regarding claim 19, Samec discloses wherein the long-pass filter is permanently coupled to the headset ([0430], pinhole occluder 1730a may be incorporated into an ophthalmic system, as part of display device 62).
Regarding claim 20, Samec discloses wherein the long-pass filter is removably coupled to the headset ([0430], pinhole occluder 1730 may be a separate component that may be positioned onto the ophthalmic system).
Regarding claim 21, Samec discloses further comprising: one or more processors (processing module 70) communicatively coupled to the headset ([0470], local processing module (70) may execute instructions); and memory (digital memory or remote data repository (74)) coupled to the one or more processors ([0472]), the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors ([0469]), cause the eye examination system to perform operations ([0469], local processing module (70) may retrieve one or more inputs stored in 1766 from the digital memory and adjust the size, shape, and arrangement of the pinhole occluder) including: receiving a response regarding the eye's ability to see the image; and determining a visual acuity of the eye (Fig 17D, [0450], local processing module (70), for example, by executing logic devices to perform instructions stored in a digital memory operatively connected to the local processing module. Process flow 1700 may be performed by an ophthalmic device).
Regarding claim 22, Samec discloses wherein the second transmission region is formed by a substrate portion of the long-pass filter that surrounds the first transmission region (Fig 17B shows occluder 1730a surrounding pinhole 1735a).
Regarding claim 23, Samec discloses wherein the second transmission region is not opaque to the near-infrared light (Fig 17B, [0437], pinhole occluder operates as an aperture or field stop that stops down [at least visible] light from the peripheral).
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.
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(s) 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Samec (WO 2016149416 A1) in view of Ouderkirk (20230061866).
Regarding claim 8, Samec discloses further comprising a dichroic filter contained within the housing ([0753], display (62), may comprise a light-emitting module 27 (dichroic lamps) to selectively administer light based on a treatment protocol) but does not teach adapted to reflect the near-infrared light and transmit the image. However, within a similar endeavor, Ouderkirk teaches adapted to reflect the near-infrared light and transmit the image ([0062], selective transmission interface 130 may include a dichroic filter that may reflect near-infrared radiation and may transmit and/or absorb visible light). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ophthalmic device of Samec with the components of Ouderkirk for the purpose of correcting refractive error within the eye of a user (Ouderkirk, [0018]).
Regarding claim 9, Samec in view of Ouderkirk discloses the invention as described within claim 8 and Ouderkirk further teaches further comprising a camera contained within the housing ([0074], camera of the eye tracking system), wherein the dichroic filter is adapted to reflect the near-infrared light towards the camera ([0062], selective transmission interface 130 may include a dichroic filter that may reflect near-infrared radiation and may transmit and/or absorb visible light). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ophthalmic device of Samec with the components of Ouderkirk for the purpose of correcting refractive error within the eye of a user (Ouderkirk, [0018]).
Regarding claim 10, Samec in view of Ouderkirk discloses the invention as described within claim 9 and Ouderkirk further teaches wherein the dichroic filter ([0062], 130 may include a dichroic filter) is positioned between the long-pass filter and the display (Fig 3, [0061], selective transmission interface 130 may transmit light within the passband range) and orientated to direct the near-infrared light towards the camera (Fig 3, [0064], radiation from the eye 101 (e.g., near-infrared radiation) may be diverted toward a camera or photodetector) and pass the image from the display ([0075], head-worn display) out through the lens and the long-pass filter (Fig 3, [0061], selective transmission interface 130 may transmit light within the passband range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ophthalmic device of Samec with the components of Ouderkirk for the purpose of correcting refractive error within the eye of a user (Ouderkirk, [0018]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Samec fails to disclose a long-pass filter having a first transmission region that transmits both visible and near-infrared light to the eye and a second transmission region that transmits the NIR light but blocks visible light. However, it is noted that the singular elements recited by the claims are not required by Applicant’s claim language to be exclusive. The preamble word “comprising” is open-ended and thus does not require the exclusivity of the recited elements, but allows the reference or combination of references to contain other elements as well. Additionally, “[t]he word ‘comprising’ transitioning from the preamble to the body signals that the entire claim is presumptively open-ended.” In Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 74 USPQ2d 1586 (Fed. Cir. 2005). See also Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“like the term comprising,’ the terms containing’ and mixture’ are open-ended.”), Invitrogen Corp. v. Biocrest Mfg., L.P., 327 F.3d 1364, 1368, 66 USPQ2d 1631, 1634 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (“The transition comprising’ in a method claim indicates that the claim is open-ended and allows for additional steps.”); Genentech, Inc. v. Chiron Corp., 112 F.3d 495, 501, 42 USPQ2d 1608, 1613 (Fed. Cir. 1997). (MPEP §2111.02.). The term “long-pass” has been interpreted to mean selectively filter out incoming rays of light and then transmit or block that light wave. Par 290 of the prior art Samec discloses that light or radiation may selectively filter light or radiation. Applicant describes the use of a pinhole occluder with the prior art as well. The definition of a term occluder has been interpreted to mean an object that partially or completely impedes the amount of light reaching the eye of a user. Because the structure of the claimed system, as identified above and in the original action, is the same as that claimed, it must inherently perform the same function and the occluder is currently disclosed to function as the claimed filter. See MPEP § 2112.01.
Applicant argues that the prior art Samec does not disclose a spectrally selective long-pass filter having two distinct transmission regions. No special definition of region is found in the present specification, and, absent a special definition, Examiner is obligated to take the broadest reasonable interpretation not in conflict with the specification. It is noted that the feature upon which applicant relies (i.e., “region”) has been given its broadest reasonable interpretation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s interpretation of, “region,” which states/seems to imply that region must be a specific wavelength or distance between two corresponding waves. However, the specification is silent as to the specific wavelength or nanometers of light being measured ; the specification does not prohibit such an interpretation; therefore, Examiner's interpretation is both reasonable and not in conflict with the specification, and the limitation is met by the prior art.
Additionally, the limitations of the claims were identified and correlated with the references as indicated above and in the first office action on the merits.
The newly amended claim language of claims 8-10 has been addressed in the above office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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, 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights