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 statements (IDS) submitted on 09/24/2024, 10/10/2025, and 11/06/2025 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I and Species A2, B2, C2, and D1 in the reply filed on 07/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant has kindly indicated that claims 1-6, 8-18, and 32-34 are directed to Group I, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-18, and 32-34 are directed to Species A2, claims 4-6, 8-18, and 32-34 are directed to Species B2, claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 15-18, and 32-34 are directed to Species C2, and claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 16-18, and 32-34 are directed to Species D1. This results in the elected claims being claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 16-18, and 32-34. However, examiner has also identified claim 3 as being directed to the claimed invention. Claims 14-15 and 19-31 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 07/21/2026.
However, upon review the examiner has further identified claim 32 “further comprising: iii) repeating step ii) for one or more iterations using one or more of the further fixed- luminance stimuli but of one or more further sizes… and vi) where a change in visual field sensitivity is found, using it as an indicator of a change in visual pathway function or disease” is directed to nonelected species D2, drawn to a total of six steps (“and vi) where…”), wherein step iii) is directed to step ii) for one or more iterations using one or more of the further fixed-luminance stimuli but of one or more further sizes. Therefore, claims 32-34 are also considered withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-6, 8-13, and 16-18 are examined below.
The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Group I and II claims each require the special technical feature of fixed-luminance area-modulated stimuli, and that this technical feature qualifies as a special technical feature despite any teaching or suggestion provided by the cited art; specifically stating that WO 201494035 A1 and US 2019133439 A1 do not teach the limitations of fixed-luminance area modulated stimuli. This is not found persuasive because there is no special technical feature. The fixed-luminance area-modulated stimuli are not special technical features as set forth below.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“i) presenting to a subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a first size at one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more locations in the visual field” in claim 1
“ii) presenting to the same subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a second, different size at the one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more location(s) in the visual field” in claim 1
“iii) using the subject's responses in parts i)-ii) to determine a threshold for the detection of said fixed-luminance area-modulated stimuli at said one or more locations” in claim 1
“iv) comparing the determined threshold of part iii) for said subject with either, or both, of a threshold for the detection of said fixed-luminance area-modulated stimuli in an age- matched normal group or of a threshold(s) for the detection of said fixed-luminance area-modulated stimuli in at least one prior determined baseline to identify any change in a visual field sensitivity” in claim 1
“v) where a change in visual field sensitivity is found, using it as an indicator of a change in visual pathway function or disease” in claim 1
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6, 8-13, and 16-18 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 independent claim 1, the limitations throughout the entire claim raise clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
The following limitations lack sufficient antecedent basis: “said stimulus” in parti i), “said stimulus” in part ii), “said fixed-luminance area-modulated stimuli” in parts iii) and iv), and “the determined threshold” in part iv).
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “i) presenting to a subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a first size at one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to fixed-luminance stimulus of the first size at each of the one or more locations in the visual field; ii) presenting to the same subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a second, different size at the one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to fixed-luminance stimulus of the second, different size at each of the one or more location(s) in the visual field; iii) using the subject's responses in parts i)-ii) to determine a determined threshold for the detection of said fixed-luminance
Claims 2-6, 8-13, and 16-18 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore inherit the same issues.
Regarding claims 2-4 and 12, the limitations “said fixed-luminance stimulus” raise clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear which fixed-luminance stimulus is referred to in these instances, whether it is the fixed-luminance stimulus of a first size in i), the fixed-luminance stimulus of a second, different size in ii), or both.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes and suggests “said fixed-luminance stimuli”.
Claim 5 is dependent on claim 4 and therefore inherits the same issues.
Regarding claim 6, the limitations “said fixed-luminance stimulus”, “the stimulus of part i) of a first fixed size”, and “the stimulus of part ii) of a second, different fixed size” raise clarity issues. The limitation “said fixed-luminance stimulus” is unclear for the same reasons as stated above for claims 2-4 and 12. The limitations “the stimulus of part i) of a first fixed size” in line 2, and “the stimulus of part ii) of a second, different fixed size” in line 3 lack sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “wherein said fixed-luminance stimuli duration is modulated so that the the fixed-luminance stimulus of the first size is presented for a fixed first duration but the fixed-luminance stimulus of the second, different size is presented for said fixed first duration or a fixed second different duration”. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 6 and therefore inherits the same issues.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “where, when stimuli of different durations are used, temporal summation and/or critical duration is tested” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
Claim 6, on which claim 8 is dependent, states the stimuli can either be presented for the same duration as each other or for different durations. Claim 8 then states “when stimuli of different durations are used” indicating that the limitations of this claim are optional. It is unclear if it is required that the stimuli now be of different durations and that temporal summation and/or critical duration is tested, or if this is optional. Further, “stimuli” in line 1 lacks sufficient antecedent basis, making it unclear if these are new stimuli or the same fixed-luminance stimuli from the previous claims.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “wherein the fixed-luminance stimuli of different durations are used, and temporal summation and/or critical duration is tested”.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the size of the area stimuli” raises clarity issues. The limitation “the area stimuli” in line 1 lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes and suggests “the of the fixed-luminance stimuli”.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations of the entire claim raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is first unclear what the further limitation is. It is unclear if there is a further limitation or if this is just reciting mathematical expressions. There are mathematical expressions but there are no ranges or metes and bounds. Any value can be mathematically manipulated according to these formulas. Any processor is capable of performing these mathematical manipulations. It is further unclear what is meant by “the fixed-luminance stimulus is converted into an energy value”. Firstly, “the fixed-luminance stimulus” is unclear for the same reasons as stated above for claims 2-4, 6, and 12. Further it is unclear what aspect of the fixed-luminance stimulus is being converted to an energy value. Additionally, it is unclear what “the dB value associated with the HFA” is. The terms “the dB value” and “the HFA” lack sufficient antecedent basis. Additionally, “ML – maximum luminance” is unclear because it is not defined what maximum luminance is. With all of these issues, there are clarity issues regarding the entire claim.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes and suggests “the fixed-luminance stimuli [[is]] are” and additionally assumes the limitations of the claim are inherent given there is a processor which can perform mathematical operations.
Claim 15 is dependent on claim 13 and therefore inherits the same issues.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §§ 102 & 103
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.
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(s) 1-3, 6, 9-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kalloniatis et al. (US 20150313457 A1), hereinafter Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Kalloniatis in view of Wall et al. (Wall, M., Chauhan, B., Frisén, L., House, P., & Brito, C. (2004). Visual Field of High-Pass Resolution Perimetry in Normal Subjects. Journal of Glaucoma, 13(1), 15–21.), hereinafter Wall.
Regarding independent claim 1, Kalloniatis discloses a method for measuring visual field sensitivity (Fig. 7; ¶0057-¶0058) comprising:
i) presenting to a subject a fixed-luminance stimulus (implicit that the luminance is fixed due to Kalloniatis only discussing varying stimulus size as a method of detecting diseases, not varying luminance as a method of detecting diseases) of a first size at one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more locations in the visual field (710; Fig. 7; ¶0058);
ii) presenting to the same subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a second, different size at the one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more location(s) in the visual field (710; Fig. 7; ¶0058);
iii) using the subject's responses in parts i)-ii) to determine a threshold for the detection of said fixed-luminance area-modulated stimuli at said one or more locations (720; Fig. 7; ¶0058);
iv) comparing the determined threshold of part iii) for said subject with either, or both, of a threshold for the detection of said fixed-luminance area-modulated stimuli in an age-matched normal group or of a threshold(s) for the detection of said fixed-luminance area-modulated stimuli in at least one prior determined baseline to identify any change in a visual field sensitivity (730; Fig. 7; ¶0058); and
v) where a change in visual field sensitivity is found, using it as an indicator of a change in visual pathway function or disease (730; Fig. 7; ¶0057-¶0058).
As stated above, it is implicit that the stimulus is a fixed-luminance stimulus, since Kalloniatis discloses a method in which the stimulus size is varied to measure visual field sensitivity, and does not disclose a method of varying stimulus luminance to measure visual field sensitivity. However, in the alternative, if Kalloniatis’s method does not disclose the stimulus is a fixed-luminance stimulus, Wall teaches a similar method for measuring visual field sensitivity comprising: i) presenting to a subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a first size at one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more locations in the visual field (Fig. 1; page 1 right column, page 2 Perimetry section); ii) presenting to the same subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a second, different size at the one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more location(s) in the visual field (Fig. 1; page 1 right column, page 2 Perimetry section); the stimulus explicitly being a fixed-luminance stimulus (Fig. 1; page 1 right column, page 2 Perimetry section; “the size of the stimulus is changes rather than their contrast” “the ring cores have a luminance of 25 cd/m2 and the boarders have a luminance of 15 cd/m2”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Kalloniatis to have the stimulus be a fixed-luminance stimulus for the purpose of having a method for early detection and/or diagnosis of glaucoma and other ocular diseases (¶0003 of Kalloniatis).
Regarding claim 2, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses said luminance of said fixed-luminance stimulus is equal to or greater than the luminance of a stimulus equivalent in size to Ricco's area at threshold for age-similar healthy individuals at an equivalent visual field location (implicit from ¶0025-¶0026 and ¶0053-¶0055, which discuss luminance and area with respect to Ricco’s law, importance of stimulus being within Ricco’s law, and age-related vision capability loss – it can be inferred that in order to effectively perform the test, this limitation must be met).
Regarding claim 3, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses said fixed-luminance stimulus at each location is presented for a fixed duration (¶0052).
Regarding claim 6, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 3, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses said fixed-luminance stimulus duration is modulated so that the stimulus of part i) of a first fixed size is presented for a fixed first duration (¶0058) but the stimulus of part ii) of a second, different fixed size is presented for said fixed first duration (¶0058) or a fixed second different duration.
Regarding claim 9, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses the size of the area stimuli is equal to or smaller than Ricco's area (¶0026, ¶0058).
Regarding claim 10, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses the said one or more locations are in close proximity (“in close proximity” is broad, any two locations of the plurality of test stimuli in ¶0058 can be in close proximity), whereby spatial summation is tested (spatial summation is necessarily tested since the test stimuli are smaller than the critical area; ¶0047, ¶0057).
Regarding claim 11, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method of claim 10, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses Ricco's area is tested (¶0058).
Regarding claim 12, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kalloniatis is silent as to the shape of the stimulus. Specifically, Kalloniatis does not explicitly disclose said fixed-luminance stimulus is a spot or circular shaped stimulus.
However, Wall further teaches said fixed-luminance stimulus is a spot or circular shaped stimulus (Fig. 1; page 2 Perimetry section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the method of Kalloniatis to incorporate the fixed-luminance stimulus being a spot or circular shaped stimulus for the purpose of having a method for early detection and/or diagnosis of glaucoma and other ocular diseases (¶0003 of Kalloniatis).
Regarding claim 13, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses the fixed-luminance stimulus is converted into an energy value using the following formula:
E
=
A
×
D
×
L
or
E
=
A
×
D
×
M
L
×
10
-
d
B
10
Where A = stimulus area, D = presentation duration, and L = a stimulus luminance calculated from the dB value associated with the HFA using the following equation (eq 3):
L
=
M
L
×
10
-
d
B
10
Where ML =maximum luminance, thus combining the afore two equations to convert from dB to E (eq 4):
E
=
A
×
D
×
M
L
×
10
-
d
B
10
(inherent to Kalloniatis, which discloses a processor that can perform these mathematical operations, also see 112(b) rejection above).
Regarding claim 16, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses wherein step v) includes statistical analysis to determine the probability that a deviation in said threshold at a given location, or a number of locations, is representative of said change (Figs. 6-7; ¶0053-¶0054, ¶0058; inherent that statistical analysis would be utilized in analyzing the data sets, further the processor of Kalloniatis is capable of performing this function, and even further Wall teaches statistical analysis in the Analysis section).
Regarding claim 17, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses the fixed-luminance stimuli are presented at different locations, in close proximity (¶0058; applied at different eccentricities, further “in close proximity” is broad), the fixed-luminance stimuli are presented for different durations, or both, whereby detected abnormalities in spatial and/or temporal summation, respectively, are indicators of a disease (¶0047).
Regarding claim 18, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 17, as set forth above. Kalloniatis further discloses said disease is glaucoma or age-related macular degeneration (AMD) (¶0057).
Claim(s) 4-5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kalloniatis (US 20150313457 A1) in view of Wall, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall1 and further in view of Mulholland et al. (Pádraig J. Mulholland, Tony Redmond, David F. Garway-Heath, Margarita B. Zlatkova, Roger S. Anderson; Spatiotemporal Summation of Perimetric Stimuli in Early Glaucoma. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2015;56(11):6473-6482. https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-16921.), hereinafter Mulholland2.
Regarding claim 4, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 1, as set forth above. Neither Kalloniatis nor Wall disclose said fixed-luminance stimulus at each location is equal to or shorter than a critical duration or shorter than and scaled to the critical duration for age-similar healthy individuals at an equivalent visual field location.
However, Mulholland teaches a similar method for measuring visual field sensitivity comprising: i) presenting to a subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a first size at one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more locations in the visual field (pages 6474-6475 Apparatus and Stimuli section); ii) presenting to the same subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a second, different size at the one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more location(s) in the visual field (pages 6474-6475 Apparatus and Stimuli section); wherein the fixed-luminance stimulus is equal to or shorter than a critical duration or shorter than and scaled to the critical duration for age-similar healthy individuals at an equivalent visual field location (critical duration is in the range of 100 ms as stated in the Introduction on page 6474, durations were 1.8-191.9 ms as stated in Apparatus and Stimuli section). It has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Antonie 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); In re Boesch 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kalloniatis to have the duration be shorter than the critical duration for the purpose of testing temporal summation (Introduction section of Mulholland).
Regarding claim 5, Kalloniatis in view of Mulholland, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall and further in view of Mulholland, discloses the method according to claim 4, as set forth above. Mulholland further teaches the duration of the fixed-luminance stimuli is shorter than the critical duration (Introduction/Apparatus and Stimuli sections).
Regarding claim 8, Kalloniatis, or in the alternative, Kalloniatis in view of Wall, discloses the method according to claim 6, as set forth above. Neither Kalloniatis nor Wall disclose when stimuli of different durations are used, temporal summation and/or critical duration is tested.
However, Mulholland teaches a similar method for measuring visual field sensitivity comprising: i) presenting to a subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a first size at one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more locations in the visual field (pages 6474-6475 Apparatus and Stimuli section); ii) presenting to the same subject a fixed-luminance stimulus of a second, different size at the one or more location(s) in the subject's visual field and recording the response of the subject to the said stimulus at each one or more location(s) in the visual field (pages 6474-6475 Apparatus and Stimuli section); wherein when stimuli of different durations are used, temporal summation and/or critical duration is tested (Introduction/Apparatus and Stimuli sections).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kalloniatis to incorporate stimuli of different durations being used for the purpose of testing temporal summation with respect to glaucoma (Introduction section of Mulholland).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9-4.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 18th, 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Wall, M., Chauhan, B., Frisén, L., House, P., & Brito, C. (2004). Visual Field of High-Pass Resolution Perimetry in Normal Subjects. Journal of Glaucoma, 13(1), 15–21.
2 Of record in IDS filed 09/24/2024.
Prosecution Insights