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 § 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) 1, 2, 4,7, 9-15, 17-18, and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (20130128229) in view of Srinivasan (20230255473).
Regarding claim 1, Huang discloses a method for eye examination (Fig 2, [0037], test subject's eyes), comprising: detecting ([0043], detect pattern), via a camera (camera 110) of a device (device 100), a visual indicator (165) located on an occluder (160) while the occluder is covering at least a portion of a user’s face (Fig 3A, [0039], an occluder 160 is shown that may be used to occlude vision in one eye so the other eye can be tested); displaying on a display screen of the device ([0037], device 100 also comprises a touch screen display 120 that is divided into a main game play area 121 and an ancillary area 122); a graphical user interface (GUI) (Fig 13- Fig 16, [0037], touch screen display 120); and outputting, via the device, a result of the eye examination based on information encoded by the visual indicator ([0067], inform the player of the number of correct choices made and the number of test rounds played) but does not teach administering an eye examination to the user with GUI. However, in a similar endeavor, Srinivasan teaches administering an eye examination to the user with GUI (Fig 2, [0039], apparatus 100 may have an integrated digital display 220 with the optics sub-system 235 for presenting visual stimuli at a fixed distance from the eye 210 of the subject 205). 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 optical system of Huang with the components of Srinivasan for the purpose of reducing the probability of errors within a vision testing system (Srinivasan, [0067]).
Regarding claim 2, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 1 and Huang further teaches wherein the detecting includes detecting a lens of the occluder covering an eye of the user ([0050], 160 could be mounted over plano glasses or strapped on as an eye patch).
Regarding claim 4, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 1 and Huang further teaches wherein the detecting includes detecting an opaque surface of the occluder (160) covering an eye of the user (Fig 3A, [0039], the visual feature 165 could include, for example, a horizontal bar 165A with well-defined termination points (e.g., vertical bars 165B and 165C) so that the length of the horizontal bar may be easily determined by computerized automatic image processing).
Regarding claim 7, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 1 and Huang further teaches wherein the occluder is configured as eyewear that includes frames to rest on the user’s face and arms to rest on the user’s ears (Fig 3A, [0039], occluder 160 could be mounted on spectacle 150 or could be fixed on user’s head using head straps).
Regarding claim 9, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 1 and Huang further teaches further comprising: determining, via the camera (110), a distance between the user and the display screen; and verifying the distance before administering the eye examination (Fig 3A, Fig 3B, [0039], device 100 may display an instruction 140 on the screen 120 (and/or by sound) so the user can position his or her head within the optimal range of distance from the device).
Regarding claim 10, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 1 and Huang further teaches wherein the occluder (160) includes a handle to be held in one hand of the user to hold the occluder against the user’s face, and the device is a portable electronic device to be held in another hand of the user (Fig 3A, [0039], occluder 160 could be mounted on spectacles 150 or could be fixed on the user's head using straps).
Regarding claim 11, Huang discloses a handheld computing device ([0091], computer system configurations, including hand-held devices), comprising: a front facing built-in camera oriented in a first direction (Fig 3A, [0039], occluder 160 could be mounted on spectacles 150 or could be fixed on the user's head); a display screen (120) oriented in the first direction ([0039], device 100 may display an instruction 140 on the screen 120); and a processor (Fig 3A, [0093], processing unit 21) coupled to memory storing instructions ([0093], processor of computing device 12 includes a single central-processing unit ("CPU"), or a plurality of processing units) that, when executed by the processor cause the handheld computing device to perform operations ([0093], computing device 12 may be a tablet computer, a smart phone, a conventional computer, a distributed computer, or any other type of computer]) including: determine a distance between the display screen and a user of the handheld computing device (Fig 3A, Fig 3B, [0039], [0093], based on video analysis, user can position his or her head within the optimal range of distance from the device); determine, via the front facing built-in camera (Fig 2, [0038]), an eye of the user covered by an occluder (Fig 3A, [0039], an occluder 160 is shown that may be used to occlude vision in one eye so the other eye can be tested); detect, via the front facing built-in camera (Fig 3A, [0039], occluder 160 could be mounted on spectacles 150 or could be fixed on the user's head), a visual indicator (165) located on the occluder (160) while the occluder is covering at least a portion of a user’s face (Fig 3A, [0039], an occluder 160 is shown that may be used to occlude vision in one eye so the other eye can be tested); display (122), on a display screen ([0152], display area 120) of the device, a graphical user interface (GUI) to display (Fig 13- Fig 16, [0067], game round to test perifoveal vision) and output, via the display screen, a result of the eye examination based on information encoded by the visual indicator ([0067], inform the player of the number of correct choices made and the number of test rounds played) but does not teach administering an eye examination to the user with GUI. However, Srinivasan teaches administering an eye examination to the user with GUI (Fig 2, [0039], apparatus 100 may have an integrated digital display 220 with the optics sub-system 235 for presenting visual stimuli at a fixed distance from the eye 210 of the subject 205). 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 optical system of Huang with the components of Srinivasan for the purpose of reducing the probability of errors within a vision testing system (Srinivasan, [0067]).
Regarding claim 12, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 11 and Huang further teaches wherein the handheld computing device is a smartphone ([0079], smart phone) or a tablet computer ([0079], tablet computer).
Regarding claim 13, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 11 and Huang further teaches wherein determining the eye of the user covered by the occluder includes determining whether the eye is a left eye of the user or a right eye of the user (Fig 3A, [0039], occlude vision in one eye so the other eye can be tested).
Regarding claim 14, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 11 and Huang further teaches wherein the detection includes detecting the visual indicator on a surface that is opposite of another surface that is against the user’s face (Fig 2, Fig 3A, [0039], user can position his or her head within the optimal range of distance from the device).
Regarding claim 15, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 11 and Huang further teaches wherein the detection includes detecting a lens of the occluder covering another eye of the user ([0050], occluder 160 should be mounted over the spectacle lens over the eye not being tested).
Regarding claim 17, Huang discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instructions operable to cause one or more processors to perform operations ([0093], computing device 12 includes a system memory 22, the processing unit 21, and a system bus 23 that operatively couples various system components, including the system memory 22, to the processing unit 21) comprising: detecting ([0043], detect pattern), via a camera (camera 110) of a device of a user (device 100), a visual indicator (165) located on an occluder (160) while the occluder is covering at least a portion of a user’s face (Fig 3A, [0039], an occluder 160 is shown that may be used to occlude vision in one eye so the other eye can be tested) displaying on a display screen of the device ([0037], device 100 also comprises a touch screen display 120 that is divided into a main game play area 121 and an ancillary area 122) a graphical user interface (GUI) (Fig 13- Fig 16, [0037], touch screen display 120); and outputting, via the device, a result of the eye examination based on information encoded by the visual indicator ([0067], inform the player of the number of correct choices made and the number of test rounds played) but does not teach administer an eye examination to the user with the GUI. However, Srinivasan teaches administer an eye examination to the user with the GUI (Fig 2, [0039], apparatus 100 may have an integrated digital display 220 with the optics sub-system 235 for presenting visual stimuli at a fixed distance from the eye 210 of the subject 205). 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 optical system of Huang with the components of Srinivasan for the purpose of reducing the probability of errors within a vision testing system (Srinivasan, [0067]).
Regarding claim 18, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 17 and Huang further teaches wherein the detecting includes detecting a lens of the occluder covering an eye of the user ([0050], 160 could be mounted over plano glasses or strapped on as an eye patch).
Regarding claim 20, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 17 and Huang further teaches wherein the detecting includes detecting an opaque surface of the occluder (160) covering an eye of the user (Fig 3A, [0039], the visual feature 165 could include, for example, a horizontal bar 165A with well-defined termination points (e.g., vertical bars 165B and 165C) so that the length of the horizontal bar may be easily determined by computerized automatic image processing).
Regarding claim 21, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the information encoded by the visual indicator includes an occluder characteristic, the method further comprising: determining the result of the eye examination based on both the occluder characteristic and test input from the user. However, Srinivasan teaches wherein the information encoded by the visual indicator includes an occluder characteristic ([0051], digital display 520 in front of the eye to be occluded may be made dark by the computational device 125), the method further comprising: determining the result of the eye examination based on both the occluder characteristic and test input from the user (Fig 5, [0051], monocular testing phase of subjective refraction, digital display 520 in front of the eye to be occluded). 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 optical system of Huang with the components of Srinivasan for the purpose of reducing the probability of errors within a vision testing system (Srinivasan, [0067]).
Regarding claim 22, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses the invention as described within claim 21 and Srinivasan further teaches wherein the occluder characteristic (Fig 5, [0051], monocular testing phase of subjective refraction) is a description of the occluder indicating at least of one: a presence or an absence of a lens, a power of the lens, indication of which eye is covered by the occluder ([0047], electrically tunable lens 315 for each eye), or a type of eye examination to perform with the occluder ([0045], tests are macular function assessment, differential light sensitivity at the periphery of the visual field, etc). 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 optical system of Huang with the components of Srinivasan for the purpose of reducing the probability of errors within a vision testing system (Srinivasan, [0067]).
Regarding claim 23, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach further comprising: configuring the eye examination based on the information. However, Srinivasan teaches further comprising: configuring the eye examination based on the information ([0041], visual stimulus will be set to relevant chart on the digital display 220, for subjective refraction). 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 optical system of Huang with the components of Srinivasan for the purpose of reducing the probability of errors within a vision testing system (Srinivasan, [0067]).
Regarding claim 24, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses the invention as described within claim 23 and Srinivasan further teaches wherein configuring the eye examination based on the information comprises determining a size ([0039], operator may perform one or more visual function tests depending on the subject’s requirement or as prescribed by an ophthalmologist) or a resolution of the GUI based on the information ([0039], apparatus 200 may have visual stimuli such as Snellen chart, LogMAR chart, tumbling E chart, astigmatic fan chart, duochrome chart, oculo-kinetic visual field test chart, equivalent of Amsler grid, etc. that may be chosen by the operator or the subject 205). 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 optical system of Huang with the components of Srinivasan for the purpose of reducing the probability of errors within a vision testing system (Srinivasan, [0067]).
Claim(s) 3, 5, 6, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (20130128229) in view of Srinivasan (20230255473) and in further view of Lee (20230036308).
Regarding claim 3, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 2 but does not teach wherein the information indicates a power of the lens used to simulate distance vision. However, Lee teaches wherein the information indicates a power of the lens used to simulate distance vision (Fig 10, [0123], zones A1, A2, and A3 may be adapted to respectively simulate cylindrical lenses having optical powers). 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 optical system of Huang and Srinivasan with the components of Lee for the purpose of increasing and providing use convenience to a user.
Regarding claim 5, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 1 but does teach wherein a type of the occluder is identified by the information. However, Lee teaches wherein a type of the occluder is identified by the information ([0170], select the most clearly visible one of the re-displayed VA measuring images and obtain information (a third input) about user's selection). 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 optical system of Huang and Srinivasan with the components of Lee for the purpose of increasing and providing use convenience to a user.
Regarding claim 6, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 1 but does teach wherein the information indicates the eye examination, from a plurality of eye examinations, to be performed. However, Lee teaches wherein the information indicates the eye examination, from a plurality of eye examinations, to be performed ([0170], select the most clearly visible one of the re-displayed VA measuring images and obtain information (a third input) about user's selection). 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 optical system of Huang and Srinivasan with the components of Lee for the purpose of increasing and providing use convenience to a user.
Regarding claim 16, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 11 but does teach wherein the information indicates the eye examination, from a plurality of eye examinations, to be performed. However, Lee teaches wherein the information indicates the eye examination, from a plurality of eye examinations, to be performed ([0170], select the most clearly visible one of the re-displayed VA measuring images and obtain information (a third input) about user's selection). 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 optical system of Huang and Srinivasan with the components of Lee for the purpose of increasing and providing use convenience to a user.
Regarding claim 19, Huang in view of Srinivasan discloses invention as described within claim 18 but does not teach wherein the information indicates a power of the lens used to simulate distance vision. However, Lee teaches wherein the information indicates a power of the lens used to simulate distance vision (Fig 10, [0123], zones A1, A2, and A3 may be adapted to respectively simulate cylindrical lenses having optical powers). 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 optical system of Huang and Srinivasan with the components of Lee for the purpose of increasing and providing use convenience to a user.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 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 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 8, the prior art of Huang taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method including the specific arrangement: “wherein the visual indicator is a quick response (QR) code that indicates a power of a lens and an identification of an occluder”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the outstanding USC 112 issues.
The newly amended claim language of claims 1, 11, 17, and 21-24 have been addressed in the above office action. The remaining arguments refer to the invention disclosed in the previous office action dated 3/25/2026.
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