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 filed on August 9, 2024 has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: reference character “S500” described in lines 3 and 10 of page 9 is not shown in Figure 6. Furthermore, in Figure 6 “S300” indicates “Power-on step” while “S300” indicates “a cover part coupling step” in the specification (page 9 lines 3 and 6) and “S400” indicates a “State Change Step” while “S400” indicates “”a power-on step” in the specification (page 9 lines 3 and 8). 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. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: Claim 11 recites “…the synchronized data allows verification of both the alternating cover state and eye deviation.” The specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for this limitation.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 5-6, 8-9, and 11-12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 lines 1-2 “…the electrode…” should read “…an electrode…”
Claim 3 line 2 “…the magnet of the covering part” should read “…a magnet of the covering part”
Claim 5 line 1 “…the magnet of the covering part…” should read “…a magnet of the covering part…”
Claim 6 line 1 “…the magnet of the covering part…” should read “…a magnet of the covering part…”
Claim 6 line 2 “…the electrode…” should read “…an electrode…”
Claim 6 line 2 “…the variable translucent film…” should read “…a variable translucent film…”
Claim 8 line 2 “…the variable translucent film…” should read “…a variable translucent film…”
Claim 8 line 2 “…the eyes…” should read “eyes”
Claim 9 “…the covering state of the variable translucent film and transmits the digitized cover state…” should read “a covering state of a variable translucent film and transmits a digitized covering state…”
Claim 11 line 2 “…the alternating cover state…” should read “…an alternating cover state…”
Claim 12 line 1 “…the coupling part…” should read “…a coupling part…”
Claim 12 lines 2-3 “…the covering control device…” should read “…a covering control device…”
Claim 12 line 3 “…the covering part…” should read “…a covering part…”
Claim 12 lines 4-5 “…the variable translucent film…the covering state…” should read “…a variable translucent film…a covering state…”
Claim 12 line 8 “…the digitized covering state…” should read “…a digitized covering state…”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 3, 5, and 11 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.
Regarding claim 3, claim 3 recites “the device” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the device” is referring to strabismus measuring device or covering control device or the coupling part and covering part together. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “the device” as the coupling part and covering part such that the coupling part and covering part are detachable using the electrode of the coupling part and the magnet of the covering part as stated on page 8 lines 12-14 of the specification.
Regarding claim 5, claim 5 recites “the magnet of the covering part is coated with the a conductive material allowing current to flow, making it detachable.” It is unclear what the statement “making it detachable” is referring to and whether the statement means that the magnet is an electromagnet such that turning the current on/off makes the covering part detachable or if it statement is merely indicating that the covering part is detachable, as stated in claim 1. Furthermore, the specification fails to clarify this statement or indicate that the magnet is an electromagnet and only states the magnet may be a permanent magnet such as a neodymium magnet (page 6 line 19). Thus the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “making it detachable” as the covering part is detachable.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “the synchronized data allows verification of both the alternating cover state and eye deviation.” It is unclear what is meant by “verification.” Does verification refer to a step in a procedure that checks the cover state and eye deviation have been received? That the cover state and eye deviation have been measured? Or that the alternating cover state and eye deviation are used for a strabismus measurement? The specification provides no further clarity as to the intended interpretation of “verification” and fails to indicate any of the three aforementioned meanings or a different are to be used. Thus the claim is rendered indefinite. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “the synchronized allow verification of both the alternating cover state and eye deviation” as the alternating cover state and eye deviation are received by the device.
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 1-2, 4, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barraza-Bernal et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0209005 – hereinafter referred to as “Bernal”) in view of Border (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0273678).
Regarding claim 1, Bernal teaches a detachable strabismus measuring device (Figure 3, Abstract) comprising: a covering part (Figure 3 blocking means 7, [0060]); and a covering control device (Figure 3 measuring device 1, [0058]).
Bernal fails to teach a coupling part and the covering part and coupling part are detachable (Bernal [0061] discloses the covers 9A,9B are movable and may be placed before a patient’s eyes but fails to explicitly the covers are detachable). However, Border is related to Bernal with respect to disclosing a head mounted display and teaches a coupling part (Figure 14d display 204, [0280] display 204 couples removable eye cover 1402 and outer lens 1414) wherein the coupling part and covering part are detachable ([0280], [0282] display 204 and outer lens 1414 are detachable). Border further teaches having detachable components to allow for easy removal and replacement ([0282]). Furthermore, it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961). See MPEP 2144.04 Section V.
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Bernal by adding the coupling part and making the coupling part and cover part detachable as taught by Border in order to allow for easy removal and replacement (Border [0282]).
Regarding claim 2, Bernal and Border teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Bernal fails to teach the coupling part and the covering part are detachable through magnetic coupling. However, Border teaches the coupling part and covering part are detachable through magnetic coupling (Figures 14d and 14e display 204 and outer lens 1414 are detachable through magnets 1404 and 1418, respectively, [0280] and [0282]). Border further teaches using magnets for detachable components to allow for easy removal and replacement ([0282]).
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Bernal by using magnets to make the coupling part and cover part detachable as taught by Border in order to allow for easy removal and replacement (Border [0282]).
Regarding claim 4, Bernal and Border teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Bernal further teaches the covering part (Figure 3 blocking means 7) includes a variable translucent film that becomes transparent when current is supplied from the covering control device ([0061] covers 9A, 9B can be liquid crystal displays that are switched from a transmissive state to an opaque state using control unit 11 in measuring device 1).
Regarding claim 8, Bernal and Border teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Bernal further teaches the covering control device (Figure 1 measuring device 1) adjusts the state of the variable translucent film to transparent or opaque ([0061] covers 9A, 9B can be liquid crystal displays that are switched from a transmissive state to an opaque state using control unit 11 in measuring device 1), controlling the eyes in a non-covering state, covering state, or alternating cover state ([0061] blocking means 7 allows for selectively blocking the sight of the eyes).
Regarding claim 9, Bernal and Border teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Bernal further teaches the covering control device controls the covering state of the variable translucent film and transmits the digitized covering state wirelessly or through a wired connection ([0058] interfaces may be connected to each other by cable or by wireless means).
Regarding claim 10, Bernal and Border teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 9. Bernal further teaches the digitized covering state is synchronized with eye deviation data ([0050] data for blocking sequence and deviation data are used together (i.e. synced) to determine diagnostic, classification, magnitude, and prescription data).
Regarding claim 11, Bernal and Border teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 10. Bernal further teaches the synchronized data allows verification of both the alternating cover state and eye deviation ([0050] data for blocking sequence and deviation data are used together (i.e. synced) to determine diagnostic, classification, magnitude, and prescription data).
Regarding claim 12, Bernal teaches a method for measuring strabismus comprising: attaching the coupling part (Figure 3 connection linking blocking means 7 to eye-tracker 13 is a coupling part) of the strabismus measuring device to an eye-tracking device (Figure 3 eye-tracker 13, [0060]; Figure 3 eye-tracking 13 is attached to connection linking blocking means 7 to eye-tracker 13); connecting the coupling part and the covering control device with a wire (Figure 3 connection linking blocking means 7 to eye-tracker 13 is connected to measuring device 1 through a wire, [0058] interfaces are connected by cable); supplying power through the wire from the covering control device (Figure 3 measuring device 1, [0058] interfaces are connected by cable), changing the variable translucent film from opaque to transparent ([0061] covers 9A, 9B can be liquid crystal displays that are switched from a transmissive state to an opaque state); switching the covering state by pressing a button on the covering control device ([0060]-[0061], [0071] control unit 11 of measuring device 1 changes transmission state using user interface 44 that may be keyboard, touchpad, or touch screen), controlling the covering state of the variable translucent film to select a non-covering state, covering state, or alternating cover state, or according to a desired protocol ([0061] covers 9A, 9B can be liquid crystal displays that are switched from a transmissive state to an opaque state using control unit 11 in measuring device 1); and transmitting the digitized covering state wirelessly or through a wired connection from the covering control device ([0058] interfaces may be connected to each other by cable or by wireless means, [0040]-[0044] blocking sequence transmitted to analyzing unit).
Bernal fails to teach coupling the coupling part and the covering part through magnetic force. However, Border teaches the coupling the coupling part and covering part through magnetic force (Figures 14d and 14e display 204 and outer lens 1414 are detachable through magnets 1404 and 1418, respectively, [0280] and [0282]). Border further teaches using magnets for detachable components to allow for easy removal and replacement ([0282]).
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Bernal by using magnets to couple the coupling part and cover part as taught by Border in order to allow for easy removal and replacement (Border [0282]).
Claims 3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernal (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0209005) in view of Border (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0273678) as applied to claims 1 and 2 above, and in further view of Rudisill et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0273752 – hereinafter referred to as “Rudisill”).
Regarding claim 3, Bernal and Border teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Bernal fails to teach the device is detachable using the magnet of the covering part. However, Border teaches the covering part (lenses 1414) are detachable using magnets (Figure 14e magnets 1418, [0282]). Although Border only teaches using magnets on the coupling part (display 204), adding magnets to the covering part (lenses 1414) would have been obvious in order to ensure a strong connection between the coupling part and covering part. Border further teaches using magnets for detachable components to allow for easy removal and replacement ([0282]).
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Berna and Border l by using magnets in the covering part as taught by Border in order to allow for easy removal and replacement (Border [0282]).
Bernal and Border fail to teach the device is detachable using an electrode of the coupling part. However, in the related art of magnetic connectors, Rudisill teaches a connector (Figure 26) that is detachable using a magnet (Figure 26 electrical conduction magnetic components 49, [0123]) and electrode (Figure 26 flexible circuit 13, [0109]). Rudisill further teaches using a magnet and electrode as a connector provides an electrical and mechanical connection ([0109]) and has several advantages including protecting the connector from wear and tear, damage from mechanical or environmental contamination, making the connector “self-mating”, reduce the need for mechanical retention ([0119]).
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Bernal and Border by adding an electrode as taught by Rudisill to the coupling part in order to provide an electrical and mechanical connection (Rudisill [0109]) and has several advantages including protecting the connector from wear and tear, damage from mechanical or environmental contamination, making the connector “self-mating”, reduce the need for mechanical retention (Rudisill [0119]).
Regarding claim 5, Bernal and Border teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Bernal fails to explicitly teach the covering part is detachable and has a magnet. However, Border teaches a covering part that is detachable ([0280], [0282] display 204 and outer lens 1414 are detachable). Border also teaches the covering part (lenses 1414) are detachable using magnets (Figure 14e magnets 1418, [0282]). Although Border only teaches using magnets on the coupling part (display 204), adding magnets to the covering part (lenses 1414) would have been obvious in order to ensure a strong connection between the coupling part and covering part. Border further teaches using magnets for detachable components to allow for easy removal and replacement ([0282]).
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Bernal and Border by using magnets in the covering part as taught by Border in order to allow for easy removal and replacement (Border [0282]) and ensure a strong connection between components.
Bernal and Border fail to teach the magnet of the covering part is coated with a conductive material allowing current to flow. However, Rudisill teaches using a permanent magnet plated with conductive materials such as copper, nickel, gold, or tin to ensure good conductivity and passivation ([0123]). Rudisill further teaches using a magnet and electrode as a connector provides an electrical and mechanical connection ([0109]) and has several advantages including protecting the connector from wear and tear, damage from mechanical or environmental contamination, making the connector “self-mating”, reduce the need for mechanical retention ([0119]).
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Bernal and Border by having the magnet coated with a conductive material as taught by Rudisill to ensure good conductivity and passivation (Rudisill [0123]) and provide an electrical and mechanical connection (Rudisill [0109]).
Regarding claim 6, Bernal and Border teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 2. Bernal further teaches supplying current to a variable translucent film ([0061] covers 9A,9B can be liquid crystal displays switched from a transmissive to opaque state using current from control unit 11). Bernal fails to teach the magnet of the covering part. However, Border teaches the covering part (lenses 1414) are detachable using magnets (Figure 14e magnets 1418, [0282]). Although Border only teaches using magnets on the coupling part (display 204), adding magnets to the covering part (lenses 1414) would have been obvious in order to ensure a strong connection between the coupling part and covering part. Border further teaches using magnets for detachable components to allow for easy removal and replacement ([0282]).
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Bernal and Border by using magnets in the covering part as taught by Border in order to allow for easy removal and replacement (Border [0282]) and ensure a strong connection between components.
Bernal and Border fail to teach the magnet of the covering part couples with the electrode of the coupling part to supply current to the variable translucent film. However, Rudisill teaches a connector (Figure 26) with an electrode (Figure 26 flexible circuit 13, [0109]) and magnet (Figure 26 electrical conduction magnetic components 49, [0123]) used to supply current ([0123]). Rudisill further teaches using a magnet and electrode as a connector provides an electrical and mechanical connection ([0109]) and has several advantages including protecting the connector from wear and tear, damage from mechanical or environmental contamination, making the connector “self-mating”, reduce the need for mechanical retention ([0119]).
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Bernal and Border by supplying current using an electrode and magnet as taught by Rudisill to the variable translucent film taught Bernal in order to an electrical and mechanical connection (Rudisill [0109]) and has several advantages including protecting the connector from wear and tear, damage from mechanical or environmental contamination, making the connector “self-mating”, reduce the need for mechanical retention (Rudisill [0119]).
Regarding claim 7, Bernal, Border, and Rudisill teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 6. Bernal further teaches the variable translucent film of the covering part switches between transparent and opaque states as current flows to the variable translucent film, controlled by the covering control device ([0061] covers 9A,9B can be liquid crystal displays switched from a transmissive to opaque state using current from control unit 11 of measuring device 1).
Bernal and Border fail to teach current flows from the electrode of the coupling part through the magnet. However, Rudisill teaches a connector (Figure 26) with an electrode (Figure 26 flexible circuit 13, [0109]) and magnet (Figure 26 electrical conduction magnetic components 49, [0123]) used to supply current ([0123]). Rudisill further teaches using a magnet and electrode as a connector provides an electrical and mechanical connection ([0109]) and has several advantages including protecting the connector from wear and tear, damage from mechanical or environmental contamination, making the connector “self-mating”, reduce the need for mechanical retention ([0119]).
Therefore, 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 strabismus measuring device taught by Bernal and Border by supplying current through an electrode and magnet as taught by Rudisill to the variable translucent film taught Bernal in order to an electrical and mechanical connection (Rudisill [0109]) and has several advantages including protecting the connector from wear and tear, damage from mechanical or environmental contamination, making the connector “self-mating”, reduce the need for mechanical retention (Rudisill [0119]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bdeir (U.S. Patent No. 9,019,718) teaches a magnetic and electrical coupling parts similar to the connection used in the instant invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights