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.
Claims 6-12 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “repositioned”, implying that the device is moved into a new position. However, as the claim does not state how the mobile device is positioned initially, it is unclear how the device is then “repositioned”.
Claims 7-12 are rejected due to dependency.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Carrafa et al. (US 20160353987 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Carrafa discloses a processor-implemented method for conducting a remote neuro-ophthalmic examination using a mobile device ([0005]: “a process for conducting an eye examination is provided”, abstract), comprising: receiving, from a distance sensor of a remote device, data corresponding to a distance of a user from the mobile device ([0005]: “The process comprises: calibrating a camera of a mobile device; using the mobile device, tracking a current distance from the mobile device to an object”, wherein the mobile device is the remote device and the mobile device is the object per para [0006]: “The object may be a monitor of a computer,”); determining, from the received data, the distance of the user from the mobile device ([0013]: “determining a testing distance from the mobile device to the computer monitor”); adjusting a size parameter of a neuro-ophthalmic examination of the mobile device ([0076]: “Characteristics of the displayed material, such as their display size, are based on the determined testing distance.”); and displaying the neuro-ophthalmic examination via a display of the mobile device and according to the size parameter ([0013]: “presenting eye examination material on the computer monitor, wherein a size of the eye examination material is based in part on the testing distance”).
Regarding claim 2, Carrafa discloses receiving user input via a user interface during the displaying of the neuro-ophthalmic examination ([0075]: “the method incorporates a step 1150 of receiving indication that a testing distance has been reached. Indication may be in the form of direct user input into the camera-enabled mobile device.”).
Regarding claim 3, Carrafa discloses generating a neuro-ophthalmic examination report for the user based on the displayed neuro-ophthalmic examination and the received user input ([0068-0069]: “a step of determining a diagnosis or prescription 290 based on the test subject's responses... 3, the process includes a step 310 of receiving indications from the test subject at a first distance in response to displayed eye examination material. The process 300 may occur after the process 200. In particular, the process 300 may be used based on a user's results or partial results to an eye examination performed using process 200.”).
Regarding claim 4, Carrafa discloses wherein the size parameter comprises a total size of the neuro-ophthalmic examination, a font size of the neuro-ophthalmic examination, or a combination thereof ([0061]: “the displayed object size determined in step 210. Where the displayed object is found to be smaller, the specified end-distance from the monitor may be shorter, as the items displayed on the monitor will be smaller.”).
Regarding claim 5, wherein the neuro-ophthalmic examination comprises a Snellen test, an Amsler grid, or a double-vision examination ([0066]: “Snellen charts”).
Claim(s) 6 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Blaha et al. (US 20190150727 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Blaha discloses a processor-implemented method for conducting a remote neuro-ophthalmic examination, comprising (abstract, [0271]: “processor”, [0007]: “assessing and monitoring a visual field of a person”): displaying a neuro-ophthalmic examination via a display of a mobile device ([0007]: “A fixation target can be displayed on a display viewed by a user”, [0044]: “such as augmented reality or mixed reality environments in a mobile computing device or other computing device(s).”); detecting, via a sensor of the mobile device, that the mobile device is repositioned with respect to a user's eyes ([0007]: “determined that the user has viewed the fixation target and the person's eye(s) location is determined”); receiving, from a user interface of the mobile device, user input during repositioning ([0008]: “receiving user input comprising indication of movement of the pointer in the virtual reality environment and determining whether the user input indicates that the pointer is moving towards the first location”); determining a location of the mobile device when the user input is received ([0008]: “targets in a first location on the virtual reality environment, the first location corresponding to a first location of the visual field of the user”); and determining a location in a field of vision for the user, wherein the user input corresponds to the location of the mobile device ([0008]: “receiving user input comprising indication of movement of the pointer in the virtual reality environment and determining whether the user input indicates that the pointer is moving towards the first location, and acquiring, based on the received user input, an indication of whether the test target has been detected by the use”, [0194]: “which uses available information to determine locations to test in the visual field. In some embodiments, before a test is administered, patient data can be updated and locations to test are determined based on the update.”).
Regarding claim 12, Blaha discloses wherein the neuro-ophthalmic examination comprises a responsive visual field test ([0060 -0061]: “, such that it is perceived by the patient as “flashed.” As mentioned above, the described techniques require verification that the patient's fovea is fixated on the fixation target. It is during this fixation time that the test target is briefly displayed or flashed. Because the fovea is small, and it has much better vision than peripheral vision, a high-detail or high-attention task can be required to be done at the fixation target, such that can be accurately determined where the patient's eye is pointed… , such that it is perceived by the patient as “flashed.” As mentioned above, the described techniques require verification that the patient's fovea is fixated on the fixation target. It is during this fixation time that the test target is briefly displayed or flashed. Because the fovea is small, and it has much better vision than peripheral vision, a high-detail or high-attention task can be required to be done at the fixation target, such that can be accurately determined where the patient's eye is pointed”).
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(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaha in view Palanker (US 20160374551).
Regarding claim 7, Blaha fails to disclose wherein the neuro-ophthalmic examination comprises an Amsler grid.
Palanker discloses a neuro-ophthalmic examination (abstract) comprising an Amsler grid ([0011]: “The series of straight lines can include an Amsler grid.”).
As Blaha discloses use of a grid ([0119]: “he blind spot mapping layout includes a high density grid disposed in a center of the layout, and a low density grid that surrounds the high density grid.”), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the test disclosed by Blaha to include the Amsler grid disclosed by Palanker in order to allow for early detection of changes in visual distortion to prevent vision loss (Palanker abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Palanker further discloses identifying a location on the Amsler grid based on the repositioning and the user input received ([0011]: “(a) displaying a fixation point and a series of straight lines on a test area on a hand held computer device; (b) receiving a positive or negative input from a user indicating the presence or absence of distortion on the displayed series of straight lines on the test grid area;”); and determining the user experiences a visual distortion at the location on the Amsler grid ([0013]: “until the visual distortion test area has been quantified with a desired level of precision to generate a visual distortion test result for the user”).
Regarding claim 9, Blaha discloses determining a direction of movement and a distance of movement during the repositioning ([0008]: “and computer monitors configured to track the movement of the head and update the image to create a window-like effect.”); and displaying a different segment of the Amsler grid on the display of the mobile device based on the direction of movement and the distance of movement ([0056]: “The position of the head pointer or hand-held pointer can be updated equally with changes in the position of the head”).
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blaha in view of Houston et al. (US 20220240773 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Blaha discloses the method of claim 6 but fails to disclose wherein the neuro-ophthalmic examination comprises a double-vision test.
Houston discloses wherein a neuro-ophthalmic examination comprises a double-vision test ([0095]: “which is indicative of (significant) discomfort, blurry images, or double vision for the user.”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the method disclosed by Blaha to include the double vision test disclosed by Houston in order to identify a greater number of conditions experienced by a user.
Regarding claim 11, Houston discloses identifying a location of a symbol on the display and in relation to the user's eyes based on the positioning and the user input received (Fig 4 and 5), and determining an angle of a viewing range of the user that the user experiences double vision based on the location of the symbol ([0076]: “The user is asked to report when experiencing double vision with a user input (e.g., a nod of the head for the virtual reality headset, an actuation of a button on the controller device, and the like). Once the computing device receives this user input, the computing device records and calculates this point (location, distance, and the like) as the user's fusional breakpoint (e.g., the onset of double vision), which is the maximum convergence value for each of the portions of content (e.g., the maximum convergence value 234).”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Steinmueller et al. (US 20170202454 A1) – discloses adjustment of a size of an eye exam
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI whose telephone number is (703)756-5368. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 - 5:30 ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jaqueline Cheng can be reached at 571-272-5596. 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.
/KAVYA SHOBANA BALAJI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/DEVIN B HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights