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 .
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.
Claim 27 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 27, the phrase "optionally" renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 1-3, 6, 8-20, 23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by GREIVENKAMP (EP 3222203 A2).
Regarding claim 1, Greivenkamp discloses, in Figures 8-10, a method for self-administered testing of one or more visual functions of a subject, comprising the steps of:
(a) providing a device having a graphical display (804) and a user input (808);
(b) displaying a series of cells on the display (Fig.9, par.[0024-0025]); wherein the cells each comprise a visual stimulus having a variable stimulus feature (pattern
orientation); wherein each cell comprises the visual stimulus disposed within a
perimeter feature (grid pair, comprising to each cell a blank pair to which the
user may choose the corresponding label corresponding to a possible
orientation A, B, C, D); wherein the visual stimulus comprises an angular
indicator that varies from cell to cell in angular position with respect to the
perimeter feature (par.[0025]), each different angular position associated with a
variation of the variable stimulus feature correlated with a visual function
feature;
(c) receiving subject responses through the user input (808), the responses
indicating the subject's selection, for each cell, of a position on the perimeter
feature (A, B, C, D) of the cell corresponding to the angular indicator of the
stimulus of the cell (para.26); and
(d) analyzing the subject responses to obtain a measure of said visual function
for the subject (par.[0027], [0036]). It is also pointed out the alternative design of Fig.1A,B for the cell grids.
Regarding claim 2, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1. Greivenkamp further discloses wherein the variable stimulus feature varies from cell to cell with respect to one or more of luminance, contrast, color, perceived depth, motion, flicker, spatial form, object recognition, center-surrounded stimulus, disability surrounded stimulus, object shape, object form, object size, stimulus feature position, stimulus feature angle, perceived interocular suppression, spatial resolution, spatial frequency, noise-defined depth, and sparse-pattern depth, presented either in the central or peripheral visual field (see Figs.1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 3, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1. Greivenkamp further discloses wherein the variable stimulus feature varies within the series of cells over a range from difficult-to-detect to easy-to-detect for the subject (see Figs.1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 6, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1. Greivenkamp further discloses wherein the visual stimulus is an array or grating of structures comprising dots, bars, lines, or structures having other shapes, and wherein the variable stimulus feature is size, color, contrast to background, contrast to other structures in the array or grating, alignment of structures within the array or grating or a combination thereof (see Figs.1A and 1B).
Regarding claim 8, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1. Greivenkamp further discloses wherein a set of two or more grids are displayed sequentially, and each grid differs from others in the set by a type of visual stimulus or range of variation of the variable stimulus features (Figures.1 and 9).
Regarding claim 9, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 8. Greivenkamp further discloses wherein a blank screen is displayed for a variable time interval between screens containing grids (Figures.1 and 9).
Regarding claim 10, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 9. Greivenkamp further discloses wherein the blank screen is white and wherein the variable time interval is varied in the millisecond time domain, for intervals less than one second, and wherein the subject's flash adaptation is measured (Figures.1 and 9).
Regarding claim 11, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1. Greivenkamp further discloses wherein the subject wears corrective lenses, anaglyph glasses, polarized glasses, a virtual reality headset, or uses a mirror system, two monitors, or any other dichotic-enabling system during testing (par.36, claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1. Greivenkamp further discloses wherein the method provides a measure of a visual function selected from the group consisting of visual acuity, visual acuity as a function of refractive errors, contrast sensitivity, glare sensitivity, motion perception, pattern perception, color detection, color discrimination, interocular suppression, monocular center, surround suppression, depth perception, form perception, supra-threshold contrast response, supra-threshold color response, equivalent noise thresholds (par.36, claim 10).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1. Greivenkamp further discloses further comprising providing the subject with a plurality of corrective lenses having different refractive error correction and/or astigmatism correction, wherein the method is performed with the subject using one or more of the corrective lenses; wherein the ophthalmic lenses or frames comprising the lenses are coded for recognition by the subject and/or by the device having a graphical display (par.36, claim 10).
Regarding claims 15-17, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed by an unassisted subject using a personal computer, laptop computer, tablet computer, or mobile phone in a non-clinical setting; wherein results of the method are reported to a testing organization, ophthalmic optician, optometrist, ophthalmologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, neurologists, or medical doctor; wherein a prescription for corrective glasses, contact lenses, or refractive surgery for the subject is produced (claims 2-4, fig. 10).
Regarding claim 18, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the test is optimized and personalized for the subject by performing two or more trials of the set of grids, wherein the range of the variable stimulus feature on the first trial are based on data from previous observers or on physical stimulus limits of the display, and wherein the range of the variable stimulus feature on subsequent trials is based on results from all previous grids for the subject (figure 10, claims 2-4).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 23, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein two are more variable stimulus features are varied simultaneously over the cells of a grid; wherein the method is repeated after one or more time intervals; wherein a plurality of visual functions are tested, and wherein said analyzing comprises performing cluster analysis (figure 10, claims 2-4).
Regarding claim 26, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the method is performed to aid in diagnosis of the presence, absence, or progression of one or more conditions selected from the group consisting of refractive error, keratoconus, amblyopia, age-related macular degeneration, glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, color vision deficit, cataract, stroke, traumatic brain injury, brain lesion area V4, brain lesion area MT, brain lesion area FFA, Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, prosopagnosia, object agnosia, autism spectrum disorder, attention deficit disorder, neurometric response, psychotic disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, Big 5 personality traits, albinism, prescription drug side effects, multiple sclerosis, visual snow syndrome, and retinitis pigmentosa (see claims 1-30).
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.
2. Claim 5, 21, 22, 24, 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIVENKAMP (EP 3222203 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Bartlett et al.(US 2012/050685 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1. However, Greivenkamp does not disclose wherein the visual stimulus is a Landolt C, and the variable stimulus feature is selected from the group consisting of size, color, contrast to background, fill pattern and/or color, thickness, ratio of gap to thickness, and combinations thereof.
Bartlett teaches the visual stimulus is a Landolt C, and the variable stimulus feature is selected from the group consisting of size, color, contrast to background, fill pattern and/or color, thickness, ratio of gap to thickness, and combinations thereof (figure 2a; par.[0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Bartlett to device of Greivenkamp for image for vision testing.
Regarding claim 21, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1 (figure 6, claim 4). However, Greivenkamp does not disclose wherein said analyzing comprises use of an angular error function. Bartlett teaches wherein analyzing comprises use of an angular error function (fig.6; par.[0038-0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Bartlett to device of Greivenkamp for purpose of image for vision testing.
Regarding claim 22, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1 (figure 6, claim 4). However, Greivenkamp does not disclose wherein said analyzing comprises measuring the subject's orientation error bias as a function of target orientation. Bartlett teaches wherein analyzing comprises measuring the subject's orientation error bias as a function of target orientation (fig.6; par.[0038-0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Bartlett to device of Greivenkamp for purpose of image for vision testing.
Regarding claim 24, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1 (figure 6, claim 4). However, Greivenkamp does not disclose wherein said analyzing comprises using a 2D or 3D mathematical function that describes the visual function to extract or predict an aspect of the subject's visual function from data supplied by the subject. Bartlett teaches wherein analyzing comprises using a 2D or 3D mathematical function that describes the visual function to extract or predict an aspect of the subject's visual function from data supplied by the subject (fig.6; par.[0038-0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Bartlett to device of Greivenkamp for purpose of image for vision testing.
Regarding claim 25, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1 (figure 6, claim 4). However, Greivenkamp does not disclose wherein the 2D or 3D mathematical function describes contrast, spatial frequency, hue, or temporal stimulus change periods. Bartlett teaches wherein the 2D or 3D mathematical function describes contrast, spatial frequency, hue, or temporal stimulus change periods (fig.6; par.[0038-0040]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Bartlett to device of Greivenkamp for image for vision testing.
3. Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GREIVENKAMP (EP 3222203 A2) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sinclair et al.(US 5589897A).
Regarding claim 27, Greivenkamp discloses the method of claim 1 (figure 6, claim 4). However, Greivenkamp does not disclose wherein a graphic display, a user input, a processor, a memory, optionally wherein the processor and/or memory comprise instructions for performing said method. Sinclair et al. teaches (see Fig.1) shows actually a device for (understood as suitable for) performing the method of claim 1, the device comprising a graphic display (11), a user input (14), a processor (10), a memory (implicit part of the computer hardware 10). Since the feature "the processor and/or memory comprise instructions for performing said method" is claimed as optional. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Sinclair et al. to device of Greivenkamp for image for vision testing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: (claim 4) the method of claim 1, wherein the series of cells is presented as one or more grids, each grid comprising two or more cells and sharing a common visual stimulus and variable stimulus feature, wherein the variable stimulus feature covers a range of values within each grid.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUYEN TRA whose telephone number is (571)272-2343. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/TUYEN TRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights