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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on May 7, 2024; May 16, 2024 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Examiner has not considered Foreign Docs #5 for failing to provide a copy (37 CFR 1.98(a)(2)).
Examiner has not considered NPL Doc #2 for failure to provide a date (37 CFR 1.98(b)(5)).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
a) powering means (claim 1)
b) cooling system (claim 1)
c) light directing films (claim 2)
d) means for moving display units (claim 7)
e) means for adjusting (claim 8)
f) coolant (claim 9)
g) connecting means (claim 11)
h) batteries (claim 12)
i) accumulators (claim 12)
j) gasket (claim 13)
k) digital computing system (claim 15)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) powering means for supplying electrical energy…claim 1
b) a display unit for generating light signals…claim 1
c) cooling system (means for cooling)…claim 1
d) brightness enhancing layer (means for enhancing brightness)…claim 1
e) means for moving each of them (display units)…claim 7
f) means for adjusting the position…claim 8
g) connecting means… claim 11
h) accumulator (means for accumulating)… claim 12
i) digital computing system for… claim 15
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “housing with a shape suited to contain” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The metes and bounds are unclear since the shape is entirely arbitrary as it is based on any possible shape (size/dimensions) to contain components. Examiner will readout the shape requirement.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the other components” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the head” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the face” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “particularly the face” which is exemplary language (MPEP 2173.05(d)). Examiner will readout the limitation.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the user” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the patient” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the period of the test” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the display system” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the following components” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “brightness enhancing layer” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Enhance the brightness relative to what? The layer being present or not present? Enhances the brightness how?
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the first polarization layer”, “the second polarization layer”, “the third polarizing layer” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the patient” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 1, the claim recites “the first liquid crystal modulation layer”, “the second liquid crystal modulation layer” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
Claims 2-15 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “the third polarization layer” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). Claim 1 specifies “a third polarizing layer”.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “the spectral range of visible light” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e))
As to claim 3, the claim recites “polarization layers characterized with a uniform transmission…i.e. a transmission deviation lower than 10%” which has a few issues. First “i.e.” is exemplary language (MPEP 2173.05(d)). Second, the 10% deviation is relative to what? (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Third, the function to provide the transmission characteristics does not follow from the structure of “polarization layer” (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the prior art teaches polarizing layers, such transmission properties are present.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “LCD panels have an optical resolution appropriate to achieve a light stimulus with an area that fits within a solid angle” of 4.4x10-5 (+20%/-15%) steradians which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Furthermore, the term “optical resolution” appears to be used contrary to its ordinary and customary meaning (MPEP 2173.05(a)).
Regarding the “optical resolution”, neither the claims nor specification provide a discussion of what this is intended to mean. Is this the pixel sizes? Some physical dimension of the LCD panel?
Regarding the resolution being “appropriate to achieve” the angular function, what is “appropriate”? Additionally, there is no correlation between the steradian range (3.74x10-5 sr < Ω < 5.28x10-5 sr) and optical resolution. The metes and bounds are unclear since what is intended by the optical resolution and what resolution could achieve the solid angle are unknown. Examiner will interpret the claim such that so long as the prior art provides eye examination, such features are necessarily present.
As to claim 5, the claim recites “the two display units” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 6, the claim recites “provided with correction lenses arranged properly for each eye” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, “properly” relative to what. Examiner will understand that so long as the art has correction lenses of the device, such limitations are met.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “both display units” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 7, the claim recites “each of them” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “them”?
As to claim 8, the claim recites “moving it (them)” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)). What is “it”, “them”?
As to claim 9, the claim recites “in particular 2/3 of the coolant” which is exemplary language (MPEP 2173.05(d)). Examiner will consider only the 50% requirement.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “over 50% of the coolant is used for cooling the display unit…the remainder is used for cooling the illumination layer” which presents a range problem (MPEP 2173.05(c)). Specifically, if 100% is used (over 50%) for the display, what is the “remainder”. Due to the issues here and below with claim 9, Examiner suggest canceling claim 9.
As to claim 12, the claim recites “the mains” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 12, the claim recites “accumulators” which is unclear what such accumulators are (MPEP 2173.05(a)). Examiner will understand so long as there is a powering means, such features are present.
As to claim 13, the claim recites “the spot” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 13, the claim recites “where the patient brings their face closer” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Closer relative to what? Where?
As to claim 13, the claim recites “replaceable and flexible gasket” which is a limitation to define the gasket by its function (MPEP 2173.05(g)) without any disclosure of how to achieve the functions of being replaceable and flexible (MPEP 2173.05(g) - Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971)).
As to claim 14, the claim recites “is suited and configured for achieving a brightness of 10000 +25%/20%” which is a function that does not follow from the function (MPEP 2173.05(g)). Specifically, such limitation is directed to the result/function achieved by the invention, yet what structure is required for such brightness function is unclear (MPEP 2173.05(g)) - For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Furthermore, “suited for” appears to be subjective (MPEP 2173.05(b)). What are the metes and bounds of “suited for” achieving the result/function.
Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the prior art teaches claims 1-4, 6, 8-13 (the base claims to claim 14), such property is necessarily present.
As to claim 1, the claim limitation “powering means for supplying”; “display unit for generating”; “cooling system”; “brightness enhancing layer”, invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
a) Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure/material for the power supplying means.
b) Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure/material for the displaying unit generating signals to perform tests.
c) Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure/material for cooling.
d) Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure/material to enhance brightness.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
As to claim 7, the claim recites “means for moving each of them” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure/material/acts for moving each of the display units.
As to claim 8, the claim recites “means for adjusting the position” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure/material/acts for adjusting the position of the display units.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “cooling system configured in such a way that over 50% or the coolant used…” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure/material/acts for achieving the coolant split or even cooling the display or illumination layer.
As to claim 11, the claim recites “connecting means for mounting” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure/material/acts for connecting/mounting the device to a stand.
As to claim 12, the claim recites “accumulators” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure/material/acts for accumulating.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
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.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart et al. (US 6,045,227 - Stewart) in view of Gilbert (2014/0192078 - Gilbert).
As to claim 1, Stewart teaches an eyesight examination device (Stewart Figs. 1-5; col. 1:5-10) comprising
a housing with a shape suited to contain the other components of the device and to accommodate the head, particularly the face, of the user for the period of the test (Steward Fig. 2 - 115);
a powering means for supplying the device with electrical energy (Stewart Fig. 2 - 130);
a display unit for generating signals to perform tests (Stewart Fig. 2 - 110, 110’; col. 3:10-15);
an optical system for transmitting the light signals from the display (Stewart Fig. 2 - 155, 150; col. 4:5-10);
a cooling system of the display unit (Stewart Fig. 2 - housing (115) implicitly cools via enclosing air);
and the display system having components (Stewart Fig. 2 - 110, 110’; col. 3:21-36).
While Stewart states the displays may be any size, shape, location and operate with any speed, frequency, color, contrast, and intensity (Stewart col. 3:30-35), Stewart doesn’t specify the details of the displays.
In the same field of endeavor Gilbert teaches displays having
an illumination layer (Gilbert Fig. 1 - 102);
at least one brightness enhancing layer (Gilbert Fig. 1 - 106; para. [0021] - diffuser, can also include BEF (brightness enhancing film));
the first polarization layer (Gilbert Fig. 1 - 108; para. [0021]);
the first liquid crystal modulation layer (Gilbert Fig. 1 - 110, LCD1);
the second polarization layer (Gilbert Fig. 1 - 112, 116; para. [0021]);
the second liquid crystal modulation layer (Gilbert Fig. 1 - 118, LCD2);
the third polarizing layer (Gilbert Fig. 1 - 119; para. [0021]);
wherein the first and second liquid crystal modulation layers are provided with a monochromatic LCD panel (Gilbert para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such display system since, as taught by Gilbert, such displays are well known in the art as high dynamic range displays (Gilbert para. [0021]).
As to claim 2, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Gilbert teaches the illumination layer is selected from a group that includes LED sheet connected to light directing films and a CCFL panel (Gilbert para. [0006], [0007]).
As to claim 3 (as understood), Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Gilbert further teaches the first, second and third polarization layers are characterized with a uniform transmission within the spectral range of visible light, i.e. with a transmission deviation lower than 10% (Gilbert para. [0021] - as discussed above, such arbitrary uniform transmission for visible is necessarily present).
As to claim 4 (as understood), Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Stewart further teaches both LCD panels have an optical resolution appropriate to achieve a light stimulus with an area that fits within a solid angle of 4.4*10-5 steradians +20%/-15% (Stewart Fig. 2 - 110, 110’; col. 3:21-36; as discussed above, so long as the displays permit eye testing, such features are presumed present).
As to claim 5, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Stewart further teaches the two display units defined above, the optical system and the cooling system, one for each eye (Stewart Fig. 2 - 115, 110, 110’, 155, 155’, 150, 150’).
As to claim 6, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 4, and Stewart further teaches the optical system is provided with correction lenses arranged properly for each eye (Stewart Fig. 2 - 155, 155’, 150, 150’; col. 4:26-30), which are positioned in such a way to be longitudinally movable relative to the tested eye, independently from each other (Stewart Fig. 2 - 155, 155’, 150, 150’; col. 4:26-30).
As to claim 7, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 5, and Stewart further teaches both display units are provided with means for moving each of them relative to the tested eye independently from each other (Stewart Fig. 2 - 105, 105’; col. 3:21-30).
As to claim 8, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, and Stewart further teaches the optical system is provided with means for adjusting the position of the display unit(s) and/or correction lenses (Stewart Fig. 2 - 105, 105’; col. 3:21-30), for moving it (them) in horizontal direction in order to adjust them to the user’s interpupillary distance (Stewart Fig. 2 - 105, 105’; col. 3:21-30).
As to claim 9, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, but doesn’t specify the cooling system is configured in such a way that over 50% of the coolant used for cooling the display unit is used for cooling both LCD panels, in particular over 2/3 of the coolant are used for cooling both LCD panels, whereas the remainder of the coolant is used for cooling the illumination layer.
It would have been obvious to provide a > 50% split in cooling since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller 220 F.2d 454, 456,105 USPQ 233, 235.
As to claim 10, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 9, and Stewart further teaches the housing is provided with an adjustable grip for mounting the device directly on the patient’s head (Stewart Fig. 3 - 195).
As to claim 11, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 10, and Stewart further teaches the housing is additionally provided with connecting means for mounting the device to a stand (Stewart Fig. 1 - 115, 170, 120; Fig. 3 - 115, 190; Fig. 4 - 115, 210).
As to claim 12, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 11, and Stewart further teaches the powering means are provided both with an electrical connection for powering from the mains and with batteries or accumulators directly connected to the device (Stewart Fig. 1 - implicit to computer (130)).
As to claim 13, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 12, and Stewart further teaches the housing has, at the spot where the patient brings their face closer, a replaceable and flexible gasket for blocking light that comes from outside the device during examination (Stewart col. 3:26-30).
As to claim 14, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 13, and Stewart/Gilbert further teaches is suited and configured for achieving a brightness of 10,000 asb +25%/-20% (Stewart col. 3:30-35; Gilbert para. [0040]).
As to claim 15, Stewart in view of Gilbert teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Stewart further teaches a digital computing system for controlling the device operation and for eye examination, which is directly integrated with the device (Stewart Fig. 1 - 130, 115; Fig. 2 - 130, 115).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Rohena et al. (US 11,622,470; 2020/0383240); Gilbert (US 9,373,178); Basler et al. (US 9,324,250; 2013/0063496); Seetzen (US 7,872,659; 2007/0268695); Braeuning (US 5,550,602); Handschy (US 5,347,378); Schurle et al. (US 5,331,358); Cole Jr (US 4,097,130); Erinjippurath et al. (US 2014/0049734); Gilbert et al. (US 2013/0335682); Erinjippurath et al. (US 2011/0279749); Bogdani et al. (WO 2025/125340) are cited as additional examples of eye testing devices and/or displays with similar polarizer/LCD structure and/or HMDs with cooling systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 June 3, 2026
Prosecution Insights