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 .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 09/27/2024 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 4-7 and 9-12, and added new claims 14-20.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), based on an application filed in Japan on 3/31/2022. The Applicant has filed a certified copy of the JP2022-058460 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55, which has been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/2025 and 9/27/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings received on 9/27/2024 are accepted to by the Examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 10-11, 14-15 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al. (US-20210106216) in view of Ohlendorf et al. (US 20190246891).
Regarding claim 1, Longo teaches a dioptric power determination method for determining a dioptric power of an ophthalmic lens when eyesight is corrected by the ophthalmic lens (refer to US 20210106216), the method comprising the steps of:
setting a target value of the eyesight in a state in which a subject has been subjected to refractive-error correction by the ophthalmic lens , (Method for measuring the spherical refraction correction need of a subject and optical system, [topic of the reference]; in step (a) choosing a target value of visual performance; subject's visual function is preferably identified at each step of the method, [abstract], a predetermined visual function target to be achieved is selected for the subject; [0029-0030]),
allowing the subject to watch a plurality of symbols in a state of wearing a test lens or in a naked-eye state while regarding the target value as target eyesight; (then, in one step, or preferably in a repeated process, the subject's vision is focused, in fact refocused. This may be done gradually and repeatedly, and the iterative process ends when a predetermined focusing goal is reached or maximum visual acuity is achieved, [0031]; During this iterative process, the subject should provide answers regarding the way he/she perceives and reads the optotype and this may be in the form of some question-answer game, [0032]; visual acuity chart may consist of standard letters, numbers, symbols, or any kind of significant image, [0037]),
asking the subject to answer the direction of the optotype (an optotype is arranged in front of the subject, [0030]); if a result in which a correct answer and an incorrect answer, or a correct answer and an indistinguishable answer, or a correct answer, an incorrect answer, and an indistinguishable answer coexist is obtained (in one step in an iterative process, the vision of the subject is focused, (0031), During this iterative process, the subject must provide answers regarding how they perceive and read the eye chart, which may be done in the form of a series of question-and-answer games, [0032]; the predetermined focusing goal to be achieved is defined as the target-viewing function that would be expected if the subject were in a corrected state, [0034]; The predetermined focusing goal to be achieved may be the best focus/best reading on the eye chart, or a predetermined visual acuity, [0035]; with respect to the response of the patient Longo teaches “in step e), the positive change value differs depending on whether the subject answers: - whether he/she sees and recognizes the eye chart, - whether he/she sees the eye chart but does not recognize it, or - whether he/she sees or does not see the eye chart, [0048]), estimating a dioptric power by which the subject visually perceives the symbols with a fixed predetermined probability in all directions in a circumferential direction of the optotype corresponding to the target eyesight on a basis of a relationship between a response and a dioptric power corresponding to the response (a target visual performance is taken into account to determine a size of an optotype displayed in front of the subject, and to determine the value of a spherical optical power of an optical component placed in front of the subject, [0012]; During this iterative method, the subject should provide answers regarding the way he/she is perceiving the optotype.[0019]; the target visual performance may for example be a target visual acuity, [0021]; the iterative process be objectively based on a value of visual performance such as determination of the visual acuity and comparison with the target visual acuity, or subjectively based, optotype seen/recognized or not, [0024]; in one step or, preferably, in an iterative process, the vision of the subject is focused, in fact re-focused. This may be done progressively and iteratively, the iterative process ending when the predefined focusing goal is attained or if the maximal visual acuity is reached, [0031]; During this iterative process, the subject should provide answers regarding the way he/she perceives and reads the optotype and this may be in the form of some question-answer game, [0032]; The evaluation of the answers may be based on a limit method, The visual acuity chart may consist of standard letters, numbers, symbols, or any kind of significant image i.e., meaningful to the subject; The evaluation of the responses may be based on methods such as the limit method, continuous or discrete method, psychological method, step-by-step method, etc.; The termination of the iterative process is based either objectively or subjectively on visual function values, such as identifying visual acuity and comparing it to target visual acuity, [0036-0038]); and determining the dioptric power of the ophthalmic lens of the subject on a basis of an estimation result obtained by estimating the dioptric power, (This will allow determining the visual acuity of the subject at each step of the method. the predefined focusing goal to attain is defined as a target visual performance that is expected when the subject will be in a corrected state, [0033-0034]; in step “d) evaluating the visual function of the subject as they view the eye chart displayed in step c) through the optical system; and e) adding a change in spherical refractive power to the optical system, wherein the change is positive or negative”, [0039]; the method also includes f) evaluating the subject's visual function after step e) and defining the result of this evaluation as the current value of visual function, and steps c), d), e), and f) are repeated until the current value of visual function reaches, remains stable with respect to, or deviates from the target value of visual function, and the change in spherical refractive power added to the optical system in step e) is specified as a function of the target value of visual function and the current value of visual function, and steps c), d), e), and f) are repeated while the size of the visual acuity chart remains the same, [0055]).
Longo outlines the aforementioned method and steps as follows: step a) selecting a target value for visual function before step b), and in steps b) and e), the size of the visual acuity chart and the change in spherical refractive power are specified as a function of the target value for visual function, [0040]; in steps b) and c), the visual acuity chart has a size specified according to the target value of the visual function, and in step e), the change in spherical refractive power is specified according to the target value of the visual function, [0041]; the method further includes: - step f) evaluating the subject's visual function after step e) and defining the evaluation result as the current value of visual function; and - repeating steps c), d), e), and f) until the current value of visual function reaches the target value or extreme value of visual function, remains stable, or deviates from the target value, wherein the change in spherical refractive power added to the optical system in each step e) is specified as a function of the target value of visual function and the current value of visual function specified in the previous step d); [0042]; if the subject is being used to wear ophthalmic corrective devices, the subject is wearing his/her ophthalmic corrective devices or his/her objective refraction as a starting point for recognizing the visual acuity chart during step d), [0045]). Longo teaches in step d) asking the subject whether the visual acuity chart can be recognized, seen, or not seen through the optical system, and in step e), adding a positive change in spherical refractive power, wherein the positive change is identified as a function of the subject's response, the previously added change, and the target value of the visual function, [0047]), but does not explicitly disclose allowing the subject to watch a plurality of optotypes oriented in various directions.
Longo and Ohlendorf both work to develop ophthalmic diagnostic methodologies.
Ohlendorf teaches allowing the subject to watch a plurality of optotypes facing various different directions (methods for subjective refraction determination are based on (subjective) feedback from a person to be examined with respect to the person's visual perception. In this case a measurement based on eye charts with ever decreasing optotypes or ever decreasing symbols, in which case the person to be examined provides feedback with respect to which characters can be discerned by the person, [0004]; Here, a person to be examined observes the optotypes and an optician or ophthalmologist inserts different trial lenses with different corrective powers into the trial frame, or changes a correction setting if a phoropter is used. The person to be examined then provides feedback in respect of what trial lenses or what settings of the phoropter allow the optotypes to be recognized to the best possible extent, [0005]; displaying optotypes (71A-C) with three different orientations of a typical direction (52) of the optotypes (71A-C), [0037]; Here, optotypes are typically displayed in different sizes, [0044], [0080]; ascertaining respective setting values of an optical unit with an adjustable refractive power at the three different orientations of the typical direction (52) of the optotypes (71A-C), calculating a first value, which specifies a spherical refractive power, a second value, which specifies a cylindrical refractive power, and a third value, which specifies an axis position of the cylindrical refractive power, on the basis of the respective setting values.) [0038-0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the dioptric power determination method of Longo to include allowing the subject to watch a plurality of optotypes facing various different directions and the subjective refraction determination are based on (subjective) feedback from a person to be examined with respect to the person's visual perception, as taught by Ohlendorf for the predictable advantage of applying a simplified procedure by using the feedback from the person to be examined with respect to the person's visual perception, in order to carry out the measurement of the refractive error without relatively expensive specialist equipment, as taught by Ohlendorf in [0004-0009].
Regarding claim 2, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein the dioptric power of the subject is allowed to wear the test lens, and the subject is allowed to repeatedly watch the symbol in order to mix a correct answer and an incorrect answer, or a correct answer and an indistinguishable answer, or a correct answer, an incorrect answer, and an indistinguishable answer together when the subject is allowed to watch the symbol in a state in which the subject is wearing the test lens (During this iterative process, the subject must provide answers regarding how they perceive and read the eye chart, which may be done in the form of a series of question-and-answer games, [0032]; the predetermined focusing goal to be achieved is defined as the target-viewing function that would be expected if the subject were in a corrected state, [0034]; The predetermined focusing goal to be achieved may be the best focus/best reading on the eye chart, or a predetermined visual acuity, [0035]; About the response of the patient Longo explained “in step e), the positive change value differs depending on whether the subject answers: - whether he/she sees and recognizes the eye chart, - whether he/she sees the eye chart but does not recognize it, or - whether he/she sees or does not see the eye chart, [0048]).
Ohlendorf teaches the test lens is changed, and allowing the subject to watch a plurality of optotypes facing various different directions (methods for subjective refraction determination are based on (subjective) feedback from a person to be examined with respect to the person's visual perception. In this case a measurement based on eye charts with ever decreasing optotypes or ever decreasing symbols, in which case the person to be examined provides feedback with respect to which characters can be discerned by the person, [0004]; Here, a person to be examined observes the optotypes and an optician or ophthalmologist inserts different trial lenses with different corrective powers into the trial frame, or changes a correction setting if a phoropter is used. The person to be examined then provides feedback in respect of what trial lenses or what settings of the phoropter allow the optotypes to be recognized to the best possible extent, [0005]; displaying optotypes (71A-C) with three different orientations of a typical direction (52) of the optotypes (71A-C), [0037]; Here, optotypes are typically displayed in different sizes, [0044], [0080]; ascertaining respective setting values of an optical unit with an adjustable refractive power at the three different orientations of the typical direction (52) of the optotypes (71A-C), calculating a first value, which specifies a spherical refractive power, a second value, which specifies a cylindrical refractive power, and a third value, which specifies an axis position of the cylindrical refractive power, on the basis of the respective setting values.) [0038-0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the dioptric power determination method of Longo to include allowing the subject to watch a plurality of optotypes facing various different directions and the subjective refraction determination are based on (subjective) feedback from a person to be examined with respect to the person's visual perception, as taught by Ohlendorf for the predictable advantage of applying a simplified procedure by using the feedback from the person to be examined with respect to the person's visual perception, in order to carry out the measurement of the refractive error without relatively expensive specialist equipment, as taught by Ohlendorf in [0004-0009].
Regarding claim 3, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 1 (see above), wherein when the subject is allowed to watch the optotype in a state in which the subject is wearing the test lens, a dioptric power of the test lens to mix a correct answer and an incorrect answer, or mix a correct answer and an indistinguishable answer together, or mix a correct answer, an incorrect answer, and an indistinguishable answer together is set at a dioptric power of an eyeglass lens regularly used by the subject or at a dioptric power close to the dioptric power of the eyeglass lens (During this iterative process, the subject must provide answers regarding how they perceive and read the eye chart, which may be done in the form of a series of question-and-answer games, [0032]; the predetermined focusing goal to be achieved is defined as the target-viewing function that would be expected if the subject were in a corrected state, [0034]; The predetermined focusing goal to be achieved may be the best focus/best reading on the eye chart, or a predetermined visual acuity, [0035]; About the response of the patient Longo explained “in step e), the positive change value differs depending on whether the subject answers: - whether he/she sees and recognizes the eye chart, - whether he/she sees the eye chart but does not recognize it, or - whether he/she sees or does not see the eye chart, [0048]).
Ohlendorf teaches (a person to be examined observes the optotypes and an optician or ophthalmologist inserts different trial lenses with different corrective powers into the trial frame, or changes a correction setting if a phoropter is used. The person to be examined then provides feedback in respect of what trial lenses or what settings of the phoropter allow the optotypes to be recognized to the best possible extent, [0005]; displaying optotypes (71A-C) with three different orientations of a typical direction (52) of the optotypes (71A-C), [0037]; Here, optotypes are typically displayed in different sizes, [0044], [0080]; ascertaining respective setting values of an optical unit with an adjustable refractive power at the three different orientations of the typical direction (52) of the optotypes (71A-C), calculating a first value, which specifies a spherical refractive power, a second value, which specifies a cylindrical refractive power, and a third value, which specifies an axis position of the cylindrical refractive power, on the basis of the respective setting values. [0038-0039]).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 3 (see above), wherein the test lens has a same dioptric power in each watching and in each answering, and the subject is allowed to wear this test lens and is allowed to repeatedly watch the optotype (one uses correction lenses having unequal correction gradient/difference levels in the iterative use of correction lenses for the trials, [0016]; an optotype is arranged in front of the subject, and the vision of the subject is defocused by placing a lens with a defocusing power in front of the eye of the subject. The predefined defocusing goal corresponds to a defocusing level target for the eye of the subject. This defocusing level target corresponds to a defocusing power target of the lens that should be placed in front of the eye at the end of the blurring phase. This may be achieved in one single step or, preferably, through an iterative method according to which the vision of the subject is defocused progressively, by progressively modifying the defocusing power of the lens placed in front of the eye of the subject, the iterative method ending when the predefined defocusing goal is attained. [0018-0019]. The modification of the spherical optical power of the optical device that is arranged in front of the eye of the subject to be tested is done by iterations/steps. One step or a plurality of steps may be considered, [0201]).
Ohlendorf teaches “FIGS. 2A and 2B show details of possible implementations of the optical unit 13. FIG. 2A shows an example of an optical unit with an adjustable refractive power, an Alvarez lens 20. To this end, the Alvarez lens 20 of FIG. 2A comprises, in particular, a first lens element 23 and a second lens element 24, which are arranged in a plastic frame 21. By virtue of rotating a setscrew 22, which represents an example of a refractive power setting device, the first lens element 23 and the second lens element 24 are movable relative to one another along an axis 25 in order thus to change the spherical refractive power of the Alvarez lens 20”, [0131]).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 2 (see above), wherein when the subject is allowed to wear the test lens, the subject wears the test lens having a dioptric power differing in accordance with a test situation, and repeatedly watches the optotype (one uses correction lenses having unequal correction gradient/difference levels in the iterative use of correction lenses for the trials, the correction gradient/difference diminishing progressively toward the end of the unblurring iterations, which brings more precision to the method, [0016]; the optical tests are optimized because it adapts in a more precise manner the blurring and/or the unblurring lenses to the subject visual perception and performance, [0124]. Ohlendorf disclosed the subjective refraction determination is implemented by means of a trial frame and trial lenses, a person to be examined observes the optotypes and an optician or ophthalmologist inserts different trial lenses with different corrective powers into the trial frame, The person to be examined then provides feedback in respect of what trial lenses, allow the optotypes to be recognized to the best possible extent, [0005]);
Regarding claims 6 and 14, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 2 and 3 (see above), wherein the optotype watched by the subject is a plurality of optotypes that differ in size including the optotype corresponding to the target eyesight (see Fig. 5. FIG. 5 represents an acuity plate displaying optotypes of the optotype type, with the corresponding visual acuity in log MAR;, [0135]; the size of the optotype may be adjusted depending on its distance to the eye in order to accurately determine the visual acuity, [0226]; For the visual perception or performance evaluation or visual acuity assessment, it is preferable to present to the subject a letter size slightly different from that corresponding to the target visual acuity of a 100% contrast. Boards or display characters are used, each composed of a single letter of different sizes, [0235]; The letters of each line have a predetermined size. The sizes of the letters of each of the two lines is usually different, [0264]). Ohlendorf disclosed plurality of optotypes in different sizes in Figs. 5 and 7).
Regarding claims 7 and 15, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 2 and 3 (see above), wherein the optotype is displayed by an eyesight-test chart so that different-sized optotypes are visually perceivable at a glance (Fig. 5 shows the optotype is displayed by an eyesight-test chart so that different-sized optotypes are visually perceivable at a glance, [0135], [0299]); Ohlendorf disclosed wherein the optotype is displayed by an eyesight-test chart so that different-sized optotypes are visually perceivable at a glance (Figs. 5 and 7 shows the charts so that different-sized optotypes are visually perceivable at a glance (optotypes (71A-C) that are observable through the optical unit (13; 20) to be displayed on a display (12; 70), [0033]).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 2 and 3 (see above), wherein an eyesight value according to a size of the optotype is a IogMAR form (the best focusing/best reading of optotypes with the maximum spherical optical power as discussed above or a predefined visual acuity (i.e.: 0.1 log MAR, 0.0 log MAR, −0.1 log MAR); A subject who can distinguish details as small as 1 minute of visual angle has a visual acuity of 0 log MAR, since the base 10 logarithm of 1 is 0. A subject who can distinguish details as small as 2 minutes of visual angle has a visual acuity of 0.3 log MAR, since the base 10 logarithm of 2 is near-approximately 0.3, and so on.In short, the formula used for determining the visual acuity in log MAR is VA (log MAR)=log (Minimum Angle of Resolution of the eye of the subject). An advantage of using the log MAR unit to quantify the acuity is that the increase of the acuity follows the decrease of the size of the optotypes and thus the increase in the difficulty for the subject to identify the optotype, [0006-0010]).
Regarding claims 11 and 19, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 2 and 3 (see above), wherein the optotype is a Landolt ring (the targets could be different, in particular with different spatial frequencies or different type of symbols, C of landolt, [0236]), Ohlendorf disclosed (Various optotypes can be used, for example standardized optotypes, Landolt rings, [0044]; In the case of Landolt rings as optotypes, the typical direction is defined by the cutouts of the otherwise rotationally symmetric rings, [0077]).
Claims 8-9 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al. in view of Ohlendorf et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Robert et al. (US 2015/0342459).
Regarding claims 8 and 16, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 7 and 15 (see above), wherein a direction of the optotype in a group of the optotypes displayed on the eyesight-test chart consists of two kinds of directions, (Longo in Fig. 5 teaches in groups of different sizes, Ohlendorf disclosed in Fig. 7 chart with groups consists of two kinds of directions, i.e., a certain direction).
The modified Longo doesn’t explicitly teach a direction 180 degrees opposite to the certain direction. Longo and Robert both work to develop ophthalmic diagnostic methodologies.
Robert teaches a direction 180 degrees opposite to the certain direction (Fig. 15, visual target present device 820, [0180], and the optotypes displayed in a direction 180 degrees opposite to the certain direction, there are groups where the cut-out regions are in a direction 180 degrees opposite). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Longo to include a direction 180 degrees opposite to the certain direction, as taught by Robert for the predictable advantage of allows eye care providers to accurately test visual acuity across diverse populations to overcome the language or literacy interference.
Regarding claims 9 and 17, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 2 and 3 (see above),
The modified Longo doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein a number of kinds of the directions of the optotype is six to sixteen. Longo and Robert both work to develop ophthalmic diagnostic methodologies.
Robert teaches wherein a number of kinds of the directions of the optotype is six to sixteen. (see Fig. 15, visual target present device 820, [0180], Fig. 15 shows a number of kinds of the directions of the optotype is six to sixteen). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Longo to include wherein a number of kinds of the directions of the optotype is six to sixteen, as taught by Robert for the predictable advantage of allows eye care providers to accurately test visual acuity across diverse populations to overcome the language or literacy interference.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al. in view of Ohlendorf et al. as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Paxman et al. (US 20070278386).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 2 and 3 (see above), Longo teaches an optional further unblurring phase, the number of trials, or steps to reach the target visual performance for unblurring, would be advantageously reduced compared to the standard method, because the previous initial blurring phase was optimized, [0016]; the invention aims at optimizing and personalizing the blurring and/or the unblurring processes. In particular, the unblurring method according to the invention allows for the unblurring while researching a specific visual performance or the maximum convex sphere giving the best visual acuity. the method of the invention, the optical tests are optimized because it adapts in a more precise manner the blurring and/or the unblurring lenses to the subject visual perception and performance, [0123-0124].
The modified Longo doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the estimation is performed by optimization calculation according to a maximum-likelihood method.
Longo and Paxman both work to develop optical imaging methodologies. Paxman teaches the estimation is performed by optimization calculation according to a maximum-likelihood method (a maximum-likelihood estimate may be calculated and optimized, thus yielding a close approximation of the phase and amplitude aberrations. The estimates may then be used to correct the system for future imaging, [abstract].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Longo wherein the estimation is performed by optimization calculation according to a maximum-likelihood method as taught by Paxman for the predictable advantage of including the step of repeating the steps of estimating and calculating until the measure of likelihood is substantially maximized, as taught by Paxman in [0008].
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Longo et al. in view of Ohlendorf et al. and Paxman et al. as applied to claim 12, and further in view of LI et al. (US 20210375460).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Longo teaches the dioptric power determination method according to claim 12 (see above). The modified Longo doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein calculation by which a likelihood is calculated in the optimization calculation is performed by logistic regression, and is estimated on a basis of the likelihood.
Longo and LI both work to develop ophthalmic diagnostic methodologies.
LI teaches wherein calculation by which a likelihood is calculated in the optimization calculation is performed by logistic regression, and is estimated on a basis of the likelihood (the machine learning algorithm is generated using a machine learning procedure comprising multivariate linear regression analysis. the machine learning algorithm comprises a logistic regression model, [0009], [0010]; Regression can be used to predict continuous value outputs .. Logistic regression models is a form of classification-based application and was used to classify the likelihood of progression to high myopia, [0089-0090]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified method of Longo wherein calculation by which a likelihood is calculated in the optimization calculation is performed by logistic regression, and is estimated on a basis of the likelihood, as taught by LI in [0008], for the predictable advantage of predicting high myopia cases, the following metrics were used: accuracy, sensitivity of predicting high myopia, [0135].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Raviv et al. (US 20200008667), ESCALIER et al. (US 20180116500), NAKAMURA et al. (US 20140211164) and Thibos et al. (US 9072434) disclose dioptric power determination method for determining a dioptric power of an ophthalmic lens.
The difference between the applied arts used for the rejection and the disclosure of the instant application: Although the combination of applied prior art references teaches the claimed limitations, it does not explicitly teach the subject matter set forth in paragraph [0087] of published Pre-Grant Publication US 20250213109, including the associated equations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30 pm PST.
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.
/R.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights