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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/18/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,102,387 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of claim 1 by USPAT 12,102,387 B2 anticipates the limitations of claim 1 of the present application.
Instant Application 18/821,470
U.S. Patent No. 12,102,387 B2
Claim 1. A diagnostic device for use in performing refractive errors assessment and neurodegenerative disorders screening, comprising: a display configure to render dynamically adjusted, binocular or dichoptic visual stimuli to a user; a varifocal optics system orientated between the display and the user’s eyes; an ocular reflex analyzer emitting light signals towards the user’s eyes and obtaining light signal reflected from selected part of the eye to measure eye accommodation during an on-going visual stimulation; and an eye tracking system configured to track movement of the user’s eyes.
Claim 1. A diagnostic device for use in performing refractive errors assessment and neurodegenerative disorders screening, comprising: a display configure to render dynamically adjusted, binocular or dichoptic visual stimuli to a user; a varifocal optics system orientated between the display and the user's eyes, the varifocal optics system including a pair of metalenses, each metalens being associated with a corresponding eye of the user; an ocular reflex analyzer emitting light signals towards the user's eye s and obtaining light signal reflected from selected part of the eye to measure eye accommodation during an on-going visual stimulation; and an eye tracking system configured to track movement of the user's eyes.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen (US 2011/0157550 A1) in view of Langston (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0160603 A1).
Chen teaches, as in independent claim 1, a diagnostic device (100) for use in performing refractive errors assessment and neurodegenerative disorders screening (Fig. 1 and 6F), comprising: a display (130) configured to render dynamically adjusted, binocular or dichoptic visual stimuli to a user ( ¶0040 “dynamic visual stimulus… evaluation processes of embodiments of APS 100 include ocular analysis & assessments, such as those involving binocular refraction condition” and ¶0059 “APS system 100 is a binocular refractive test”); a varifocal optics system (160) orientated between the display (130) and the user’s eyes, an ocular reflex analyzer (180) emitting light signals towards the user’s eye and obtaining light signal reflected from selected part of the eye to measure eye accommodation during an on-going visual stimulation (“housings 160 and 180 to reflect/direct the irradiation 140 to the eyes and reflect/direct the resulted ocular signals back to the image detector 150” Figure 6F and 6G shows the measurement being done as the user watches the animation) and an eye tracking system configured to track movement of the user’s eyes (¶0040 “APS 100 applies advanced photoscreening technology along with eye tracking”), Chen fails to teach a diagnostic device for use in performing neurodegenerative disorders screening. In a related art, Langston teaches a diagnostic device for use in performing neurodegenerative disorders screening (¶0022 “provides a method for screening a subject for a neurodegenerative disorder).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a diagnostic device performing refractive errors assessment, as taught by Chen, with a diagnostic device performing neurodegenerative disorders, as taught by Langston, for the purpose of providing a device capable of screening subjects for Parkinson's disease or Parkinson's-like disease that would be useful in insuring that appropriate treatments are promptly provided (¶0004).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lu (US Patent Number 12,635,675 B2) teaches a diagnostic device performing neurodegenerative disorders screening.
Sulai (US Patent Number 10,520,742 B1) teaches an optical device comprising an eye tracking system.
Ouderkirk (US Patent Publication Number 2020/0064627 A1) teaches an optical device comprising an eye tracking system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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, 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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
10 June 2026
/RICKY L MACK/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights