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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 9, the phrase “the indicator” is assumed to be a typographical error and should have been written “[[the]]an indicator”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, the phrase “wherein the headform is an animal headform” is assumed to be a typographical error and should have been written “wherein the support is an animal headform”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 12, 13, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano (US 2014/0190030) in view of Giacomini (US 4,523,384).
Regarding Claim 12, Sano discloses a system for measuring eye relief comprising:
a support (Fig. 8A, cylindrical rod holding section 63LA) comprising an external surface (Fig. 8A, circumference of the cylindrical rod holding section 63LA) defining one or more channels (Fig. 8A, bottom opening of the rod insertion hole 63LF), wherein the one or more channels extend from the external surface perpendicularly to a vertical axis of the support (Fig. 8A, rod insertion hole 63LF goes entirely through 63LA and is perpendicular to 63LB, as shown in Fig. 6, Paragraph 0055, lines 6-9); and
a measuring device comprising:
a rod (Fig. 8A, measuring rod 64L), adapted to be inserted through the one or more channels (Fig. 8A, measuring rod 64L is inserted into 63LF), wherein the rod comprises an indicator positioned from an end of the rod at a distance equivalent to the length of the one or more channels (Fig. 8A, rod scale marks 73 can be used to measure the distance within the cavity 63LF, Paragraph 0057, lines 7-13 and additionally see Paragraph 0056, lines 13-18); and
a locking device slidably coupled to the rod (Fig. 8A, engaging ball 77BA and spring 77BB).
Sano does not specifically disclose a locking ring.
However, Giacomini, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a locking ring (Fig. 5, locking rings 53, Col. 4, lines 1-3), for the purpose of locking a measuring rod in a measuring position.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have the system of Sano with a locking ring, of Giacomini, for the purpose of locking a measuring rod in a measuring position.
Regarding Claim 13, Sano in view of Giacomini discloses as is set forth above and Giacomini further discloses wherein the measuring device further comprises a locking mechanism adapted to secure the locking ring to the rod (Fig. 5, locking rings 53 secure the telescoping pole 13, Col. 4, lines 1-3), for the purpose of locking a measuring rod in a measuring position.
Regarding Claim 14, Sano in view of Giacomini discloses as is set forth above and Sano further discloses wherein the support further comprises a vertical surface disposed in a hollow interior, wherein the vertical surface defines an end of the one or more channels (Fig. 8A, rod insertion hole 63LF goes entirely through 63LA and defines a cylindrical hollow interior which can define a vertical surface, depending on the orientation of 63LA, see Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 15, Sano in view of Giacomini discloses as is set forth above and Sano further discloses wherein the indicator is adjustable (Fig. 8A, the measuring rod 64L is movable which changes the rod scale marks 73 are visible, Paragraph 0064, lines 1-15).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-11 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, Wang et al. (US 2024/0012257) discloses a method for determining eye relief (Paragraph 0047, lines 1-4) comprising:
placing an optical device on a support (Fig. 8, optical modules 30 are attached to the support structure 58);
extending a rod of a measuring device through a channel of the support into an eye-relief space of the optical device (Fig. 8, shaft 64);
contacting an end of the rod to the optical device (Fig. 8, the end of the rod 64 is attached to the support structure 58, which is connected to the optical modules 30);
translating a locking ring along the rod until the locking ring contacts the support (Fig. 8, threads 66 acting as a locking ring, as shown); and
locking the locking ring in position by actuating a locking mechanism (Paragraph 0050, lines 1-9).
Wang et al. (US 2024/0012257) does not specifically disclose “… wherein the distance between the end of the rod and an indicator is equivalent to a length of the channel, such that the eye relief is determined as a distance between the indicator and a position on the locking ring contacting the support.”.
Neither Sano (US 2014/0190030), Giacomini (US 4,523,384), Hoekman et al. (US 2024/0241374), Matzinger et al. (US 2024/0192462), Chambers et al. (US 2025/0013000), Johnson et al. (US 2025/0060426), Hewlett et al. (US 9,772,497), Arita (US 2023/0075963), Mirabella et al. (US 11,782,288), Mirabella et al. (US 2021/0080746), Seadat Beheshti et al. (US 2025/0258381), Pomeroy et al. (US 2024/0094548), Simmons (US 10,275,024), Simmons (US 2020/0310537), nor Lee et al. (US 2025/0247598) remedy the deficiencies of Wang et al. (US 2024/0012257).
Reasons for Allowance/Examiner’s Comments
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, regarding the allowability of independent claim 1: The prior art of record does not disclose or suggest a method comprising “… wherein the distance between the end of the rod and an indicator is equivalent to a length of the channel, such that the eye relief is determined as a distance between the indicator and a position on the locking ring contacting the support.”, along with other claim limitations. Claims 2-11 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 1.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims are 16, 17-18, and 19-20 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 claim 16, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the support is a human headform.
Specifically, with respect to claim 17, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the support is an animal headform.
Specifically, with respect to claim 19, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach a system including, as the distinguishing feature(s) in combination with the other limitations, wherein the external surface forms a shape simulating an external surface of one or more eyes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM R ALEXANDER whose telephone number is (571)270-7656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 AM- 4:00 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 on (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.
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872