Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 17, 2026
Application No. 18/684,727

EYE EXAMINATION DEVICE

Non-Final OA §112
Filed
Feb 19, 2024
Examiner
PINKNEY, DAWAYNE
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
unknown
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
81%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 7m
To Grant
99%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 81% — above average
81%
Career Allow Rate
1378 granted / 1704 resolved
+12.9% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 7m
Avg Prosecution
50 currently pending
Career history
1754
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.7%
-38.3% vs TC avg
§103
49.8%
+9.8% vs TC avg
§102
26.4%
-13.6% vs TC avg
§112
9.1%
-30.9% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1704 resolved cases

Office Action

§112
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 . Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/24/2024 and 07/24/2024 have been considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 1, the applicant claims “test values”, however, it is unclear to the Examiner as to what exactly the test values are and how they are measured/scaled (i.e., are they acuity values/measurements and if they are acuity values/measurements are they scaled using logMAR, decimal, fractional (Snellen scale), dioptric, etc.). Therefore, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. 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. Claim 1 is 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. Regarding claim 1, the applicant claims “inputting an optional test symbol” and “optionally selecting the test symbol”, however, it is unclear to the Examiner as to whether or not the test symbol is input by the input unit and if the test symbol is selected since the limitations are optional. Also, the applicant claims “test values”, however, it is unclear to the Examiner as to what exactly the test values are and how they are measured/scaled (i.e., are they acuity values/measurements and if they are acuity values/measurements are they scaled using logMAR, decimal, fractional (Snellen scale), dioptric, etc.). In addition, the applicant claims “test values from 5.0 to 2.0 in increments of 1.0 and selecting test values from 2.0 to 0.01 in increments of 0.01”, however, is it unclear to the Examiner how test values can be incremented from 5.0 to 2.0 and from 2.0 to 0.01. However, it appears to the Examiner that the test values from 5.0 to 2.0 and from 2.0 to 0.0 should be decremented, or that the phrase should be reworded to be --test values from 2.0 to 5.0 in increments of 1.0 and selecting test values from 0.01 to 2.0 in increments of 0.01--. Furthermore, the applicant claims “displays information such as a test setting and a test symbol processed by the visual acuity test operation instrument”, however, the scope of the claim is unclear to the Examiner (it's unclear if the above mentioned examples are the invention or just part of the invention) and it is undistinguishable if the test setting and a test symbol processed by the visual acuity test operation instrument are actually (required to be) displayed by the test symbol display instrument or not (are merely illustrative). Therefore, claim 1 does not clearly define the invention’s metes and bounds and is rendered vague and indefinite. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Merrian et al. (US 11,622,680), Sakurada et al. (US 2022/0369921) and Marin et al. (US 10,945,596) discloses a visual acuity test apparatus that includes a visual acuity test operation instrument including an input unit, a storage unit, a test symbol selection unit, a test value selection unit and a test symbol display instrument. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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 at 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. /DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 12/30/2025
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 19, 2024
Application Filed
Dec 30, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §112
Feb 19, 2026
Interview Requested
Feb 26, 2026
Examiner Interview (Telephonic)
Mar 07, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12593976
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MEASURING VISUAL AXIS OF THE EYE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12588808
Imaging Systems with Improved Accuracy and Measurements
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12591162
Controllable Aperture with Index-Matched Central Region for a Portable Electronic Device Imaging System
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588811
Modular Platform for Ocular Evaluations
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12590489
WINDOW OR DOOR, AND BUILDING WALL COMPRISING SAID WINDOW OR DOOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
81%
Grant Probability
99%
With Interview (+18.0%)
2y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 1704 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in for Full Analysis

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month