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 June 26th, 2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 7-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Betin (RU 2420223 C2, as evidenced by the machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Betin discloses a visual perception training providing apparatus (Figs. 1-4, 7, 12-18, [0029], “a housing 1, in the cavity of which a demonstration screen 2 is installed for presenting light point test objects to the patient”), the apparatus comprising:
a display module (2) configured to display a circular layer coordinate system (as shown in Figs. 7 and 16-18, a circular coordinate system is provided), which includes a plurality of circular layers (2 has a plurality of circular layers) and a plurality of straight lines (2 has a plurality of straight lines), and which includes a plurality of cross points where the plurality of circular layers intersect the plurality of straight lines (as shown in Figs. 7 and 16-18, cross points are provided at intersections of the circular layers and straight lines);
a memory configured to store information about the circular layer coordinate system (25, [0042], “A translucent form 25 can be placed on the display screen 24 for copying the results of the visual field examination onto it”);
an input module (28) configured to receive a response of a trainee ([0045], “uses button 28 to register their perception”); and
a control module (12) configured to:
calculate response scores of the trainee for the plurality of cross points ([0045], “The patient (or the doctor, at the patient’s voice command) uses button 28 to register their perception, and the state of the patient’s visual system is determined by the recorded points”) in order from a circular layer closest to an origin of the circular layer coordinate system to a circular layer furthest away from the origin ([0046], “rotates screen 2 with light test objects around its central axis, thereby increasing the number of stimulus locations and expanding the visual field being examined”, examiner interprets this to mean the responses are recorded starting from a central point and moves outwards towards a periphery);
set a predetermined number of a training point (14) based on the calculated response scores ([0046], “if a more detailed examination is necessary, rotates screen 2 with light test objects around its central axis”, [0028], “using a screen rotation of 22.5° with 76 emitters of light test objects”, examiner interprets this to mean the training points is predetermined based on the rotation); and
perform visual perception training on the training point ([0046], “After all stimuli have been presented, the information received is processed, the obtained research results are analyzed, and an appropriate diagnostic conclusion is made about the state of the patient’s visual system”).
Regarding claim 7, Betin further discloses wherein the control module (12) is configured to:
reset the training point (14) based on the result of the visual perception training ([0046], “After all stimuli have been presented, the information received is processed, the obtained research results are analyzed, and an appropriate diagnostic conclusion is made about the state of the patient’s visual system”, examiner interprets this to mean the apparatus is reset after the examination), and
wherein the plurality of straight lines pass through the origin of the circular layer coordinate system (as shown in Figs. 7 and 16-18, the straight lines pass through the center).
Regarding claim 8, Betin discloses a visual perception training providing method ([0045], “register their perception, and the state of the patient’s visual system is determined”, [0046], “appropriate diagnostic conclusion is made about the state of the patient’s visual system”) performed by a control module (Figs. 1-4, 7, 12-18, element 12) of an apparatus (Fig. 1 shows an apparatus), the method comprising:
displaying (2) a circular layer coordinate system (as shown in Figs. 7 and 16-18, a circular coordinate system is provided), which includes a plurality of circular layers (2 has a plurality of circular layers) and a plurality of straight lines (2 has a plurality of straight lines), and which includes a plurality of cross points where the plurality of circular layers intersect the plurality of straight lines, on a display module of the apparatus (as shown in Figs. 7 and 16-18, cross points are provided at intersections of the circular layers and straight lines);
calculating response scores of a trainee for the plurality of cross points ([0045], “The patient (or the doctor, at the patient’s voice command) uses button 28 to register their perception, and the state of the patient’s visual system is determined by the recorded points”) in order from a circular layer closest to an origin of the circular layer coordinate system to a circular layer furthest away from the origin ([0046], “rotates screen 2 with light test objects around its central axis, thereby increasing the number of stimulus locations and expanding the visual field being examined”, examiner interprets this to mean the responses are recorded starting from a central point and moves outwards towards a periphery);
setting a predetermined number of a training point (14) based on the calculated response scores ([0046], “if a more detailed examination is necessary, rotates screen 2 with light test objects around its central axis”, [0028], “using a screen rotation of 22.5° with 76 emitters of light test objects”, examiner interprets this to mean the training points is predetermined based on the rotation); and
performing visual perception training on the training point ([0046], “After all stimuli have been presented, the information received is processed, the obtained research results are analyzed, and an appropriate diagnostic conclusion is made about the state of the patient’s visual system”).
Regarding claim 14, Betin further discloses wherein the control module (12) is configured to:
reset the training point (14) based on the result of the visual perception training ([0046], “After all stimuli have been presented, the information received is processed, the obtained research results are analyzed, and an appropriate diagnostic conclusion is made about the state of the patient’s visual system”, examiner interprets this to mean the apparatus is reset after the examination), and
wherein the plurality of straight lines pass through the origin of the circular layer coordinate system (as shown in Figs. 7 and 16-18, the straight lines pass through the center).
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Betin (RU 2420223 C2, as evidenced by the machine translation) in view of Kang (EP 4183379 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Betin discloses as is set forth in claim 8 rejection above but does not specifically disclose a computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program for performing the visual perception training providing method.
However Kang, in the same field of endeavor because both teach perception training method, teaches a computer-readable recording medium ([0057], “memory 1300”) storing a computer program for performing the visual perception training providing method ([0056], “the memory 1300 may store data related to a visual perception task. In detail, the memory 1300 may store a program for executing a visual perception task”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to have the teach perception training method of Betin with the computer-readable recording medium storing a computer program for performing the visual perception training providing method as taught by Kang, for the purpose of improving visual ability through perception training ([0020-0023]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-6 and 9-13 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 U.S.C. 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to claim 2, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the control module is configured to: display a first reference image at the origin; display a second reference image at each of the plurality of cross points; receive a response of the trainee as to whether the first reference image is the same as the second reference image; perform a test operation of determining whether the response of the trainee is correct; and calculate the response scores for the plurality of cross points based on whether the response of the trainee is correct.
Claims 3-6 are objected to due to dependency upon claim 2.
Specifically, with respect to claim 9, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or suggest wherein the control module is configured to: display a first reference image at the origin; display a second reference image at each of the plurality of cross points; receive a response of the trainee as to whether the first reference image is the same as the second reference image; perform a test operation of determining whether the response of the trainee is correct; and calculate the response scores for the plurality of cross points based on whether the response of the trainee is correct.
Claims 10-13 are objected to due to dependency upon claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Fateh (US 2009/0180071), Seiller (US 2008/0212032), Zhang (CN 210384360 U, as evidenced by the machine translation), Yeh (US 2008/0024726), Iwata (US 2022/0175242) teach a visual perception training providing apparatus, the apparatus comprising: a display module configured to display a circular layer coordinate system, which includes a plurality of circular layers and a plurality of straight lines, an input module configured to receive a response of a trainee; and a control module configured to: calculate response scores of the trainee for the plurality of cross points.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW Y LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3526. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 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.
/MATTHEW Y LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 11 June 2026
Prosecution Insights