DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
3. The specification is objected to because on page 20, line 6, “trial lens 5” should read “trial lens 8.” Appropriate correction is required. Applicant should search for and correct all additional errors.
Examiner’s Note
4. Throughout the objections/rejections below, reference numerals (#) included in applicant’s claims have been omitted for improved readability.
Claim Objections
5. The claims are objected to because they contain a number of informalities. Examples of some of these informalities are:
Regarding the format of claims 1 and 8, “each element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation, 37 CFR 1.75(i)”; see MPEP § 608.01(m)
Claim 1, line 2, should read “comprising an optomechanical system”
Claim 1, line 5, should read “
Claim 1, lines 5-6, should read “side arms, wherein said side arms,” “side arms, and said side arms,” or some variation thereof
Claim 1, lines 10-11, should read “an optical tube fixing a lens system, a vision switching off system, and a pupil illuminator,” “optical tubes fixing a lens system, vision switching off systems, and pupil illuminators,” or some variation thereof
Claim 1, line 12, should read “an axis of the lens system”
Claim 1, line 17, should read “the pupil illuminators” or “the pupil illuminator[[s]],” depending on whether applicant meant to earlier claim one/plurality of “eye pupil illuminator” (lines 10-11)
Claims 3 and 9 should each read “
Claim 7, line 3, should read “a retina
Claim 8, lines 20-21, should read “pupil[[ v]] registered”
Claim 8, lines 5-6, should read “an immobile”
Appropriate correction is required. Applicant should search for and correct all additional errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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 USC 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.
7. Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) or 35 USC 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 USC 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-12, the claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claims 1-3, 6, 8, and 12, the claims include the language “and/or” which creates ambiguity. In each instance, it is unclear whether applicant claims the combination of both elements, either element alone, or just one element but not the other. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret each instance of “and/or” to read “or.”
Regarding claim 1, applicant claims a “vision switching off system” (line 10). Applicant’s specification only describes a vision switching off system as a “(blackout of part of the screen 6a or a cover 6b) controlled by the computer 4” (page 18 lines 3-4). It is unclear how such a system could “switch off” a user’s eyesight. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “a vision reducing system.”
Applicant claims “the possibly largest part of the eye’s field of view” (lines 13-14). However, the language “possibly” raises question as to whether the limitations are claimed features of the invention. It is unclear whether the referenced portion of the field of view is actually the largest. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “
Applicant claims “illuminators are permanently mounted on the side arms” (lines 17-18). However, it is unclear in what manner the illuminators are “permanently” mounted—whether their positions are fixed relative to other components, whether they cannot be unmounted by any means whatsoever, or something else. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “illuminators are
Claim 2 contains a similar issue of clarity, regarding use of the language “permanently,” and is interpreted similarly.
Claims 2-12 inherit all issues of clarity posed by claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, applicant claims “a handle for additional trial lenses.” It is unclear what type of handle applicant is referring to in this context, and how a handle could be “for” a plurality of lenses. Further, a handle is not described or mentioned in applicant’s specification. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “to interact with additional trial lenses.”
Applicant claims “change parameters of the lens system,” but it is unclear what parameters are being referred to and how they are changed. Applicant should specify what parameters are being changed and how, to avoid a 112(a) enablement rejection.
Regarding claim 6, applicant claims “mounted on additional guideways (31) and/or (32).” While applicant is allowed to use reference numerals in their claims, reference numerals alone cannot be used to refer to features of a claimed invention. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “mounted on an additional first guideway (31) [[and/]]or second guideway (32).”
Regarding claim 8, numerous antecedent basis issues render the claim indefinite. Examples of some of these issues are: “the measurement,” “the observer’s interpupillary distance,” “the point,” “the actual field of view,” “the sizes,” “the use,” “the individual refractive error,” “the movements,” “the alternating vision switching off system,” “the main axes,” “the…horizontal pupillary distance,” “the position of fixation points,” “the surface,” and so forth.
Applicant claims “in each the point of the actual field of view” (line 5). However, is unclear how anything could be “in” a point, since a point represents a single coordinate position. Further, the metes and bounds of “each…point of the actual field of view” are unclear, since applicant has not defined where the “actual field of view” lies. Applicant also claims “the actual field of view” (line 5) and “actual horizontal pupillary distance” (line 13). In each instance, it is unclear how “actual” is intended to modify each term. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “at each the point of the
Applicant claims “sizes of vertical and horizontal distortions” (lines 5-6). However, it is unclear whether “sizes” refer to amounts of aberration, dimensional measurements of individual distortion artefacts, % of pincushion/barrel distortion, or something else. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “amount of aberration.”
Applicant claims “distortions resulting from the use of lens systems in front of the observer’s eye” (lines 6-7). It is unclear how using a lens system in front of a user’s eye would cause distortions to appear in the lens system. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “aberrations present in the lens system[[s]] in front of the observer’s eye.”
Applicant claims “enabling the observation of the screen at an infinite distance are determined” (lines 8-9). It is unclear how a person could observe a screen at an infinite distance, and also what is being “determined.” The examiner cannot reliably interpret this part of the claim.
Applicant claims “alternate cyclic switching off of the vision of one of the eyes with the system” (lines 15-16). It is unclear in what manner “cyclic switching off of the vision” alternates. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “, which alternates between each eye,
Applicant claims both “image pattern (13)” and “corrected position (13),” using the same reference numeral. It is unclear whether these different terms refer to the same feature. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “image pattern (13).”
Applicant claims “image pattern (13)” and “image pattern (14).” However, it appears as though applicant has attempted to assign the same name to two separately-numbered features. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “first image pattern (13)” and “second image pattern (14).”
The above examples represent some, but not all, of the 112(b) issues present in claim 8. Due to the extensive nature of these issues, claim 8 and its dependent claims 9-12 will not be rejected using prior art.
Claims 9-12 inherit all issues of clarity posed by claim 8.
Regarding claim 9, applicant claims “the parameters of the lens system are changed,” but it is unclear what parameters are being referred to and how they are changed. Applicant should specify what parameters are being changed and how, to avoid a 112(a) enablement rejection.
Applicant claims “fixation points…are shifted…so as to force seeing the screen at a near distance.” However, it is unclear how a user is forced to see something at a certain distance by shifting the locations of fixation points. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “so as to allow seeing the screen more clearly at a near distance.”
Regarding claim 10, applicant claims “intensity and direction of the pupil adjustment movement registered by the camera at the moment of switching off its vision.” However, it is unclear how an intensity/direction of pupil movement could be measured within a single instant. It is also unclear how any pupil movement could be registered by the camera at the moment when it is switched off. Applicant also claims “exactly at the moment when the other eye begins to fixate straight ahead.” It is unclear how or why applicant would expect the “other eye” to fixate straight ahead at exactly the same moment that the camera is switched off. The examiner cannot reliably interpret this claim.
Regarding claim 11, applicant claims “graphic pattern (13) and (13),” despite claiming “image pattern (13),” “corrected position (13),” and “image pattern (14)” in claim 8 (from which claim 11 depends). Consistent terminology must be used. Furthermore, while applicant is allowed to use reference numerals in their claims, reference numerals alone cannot be used to refer to features of a claimed invention. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “first image pattern (13) and second image pattern (14).”
Applicant also claims that each of the patterns “represent the same three-dimensional object, the visualization of which…takes into account…transformations separately with respect to the left and right eye.” However, if there are two patterns which represent two different transformations of a three-dimensional object, then the patterns do not represent the same three-dimensional object. For the purposes of this Office action, the examiner will interpret the claim to read “represent similar s.”
Regarding claim 12, applicant claims “an image and/or background enhancing the viewer’s impression of spatiality.” However, the manner in which the image/background changes the viewer’s impression of spatiality is unclear. Applicant should clarify how a viewer’s impression is enhanced.
Furthermore, mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) are abstract ideas, and are not patentable. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III. Applicant should amend this claim in order to avoid receiving a 101 rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 USC 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.
9. Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (KR 102112339 B1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Kim discloses a device (Fig. 1) for automated measurements of eyeball deviation and/or vertical and horizontal observation angles (Abstract, “apparatus for automatically measuring the angle of strabismus”), comprising optomechanical system ([0065], “moving the display…by a mechanical method”) cooperating with image recording ([0016], photographing unit) and display devices ([0016], image output unit), characterized in that it has a screen (Figs. 2-4, 10) placed in an integrated housing (Figs. 1-3, 1), in front of which two symmetrically embedded optomechanical modules (Fig. 4, 37-38) are mounted on the side arms (Fig. 5, 35-36) said side arms are movably embedded on parallel, horizontal guideways (Fig. 5, 31a) arranged perpendicularly in relation to the side arms (Fig. 5, 31a are perpendicular to 35) and driven along these guideways with a servo drive ([0086], “31 and 32 are operated by control of the control unit 100”) and driving elements (Fig. 5, 31b and 34b), wherein every optomechanical module has a camera (Fig. 2, 20 and 25) operating in the invisible light spectrum ([0092], corresponding to infrared LEDs), optical tube fixing the lens system (Fig. 4, 7-8), vision switching off system ([0094], 100), eye pupil illuminator (Fig. 2, 40 and 45) operating in the invisible light spectrum ([0092], infrared), wherein the screen is placed perpendicularly to the axis of the lens system (Fig. 4, 10 is perpendicular to an axis of 7-8) and at a distance that allows acute viewing of the screen and covering the possibly largest part of the eye's field of view (Fig. 4, when a user’s eyes are placed at 7-8), moreover a selective element (Fig. 9, 60 and 65) is placed between the lens system and the screen ([0113]-[0114]), enabling the reflection of both pupil images in the invisible spectrum ([0092]) field of view towards the cameras (Fig. 2, toward 20 and 25), but at the same time enabling continuous visual observation of the screen (Fig. 2, wherein 10, 20, and 25 occupy a user’s field of view), the illuminators are permanently mounted on the side arms (Figs. 2 & 5, 40 and 45 are mounted on 35-36) in such a way as to illuminate the entire pupil of the eye (Fig. 2, when 40 and 45 occupy a user’s field of view) and at the same time not to cause light reflections on the lens surfaces visible in the images from the cameras (Fig. 3, 40 is arranged lower than 7), moreover the screen, the camera, the vision switching off system, the servo drive, the driving elements are connected and controlled by a computer ([0062] & Fig. 6, 120).
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses that the integrated housing has a permanently mounted head stabilizer and/or has a profiled shape that allows tight seating of the examined person's face ([0051], “rear surface of the cover housing 1 in contact with the face is bent in a curved shape in order to increase adhesion to the face”).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, Kim discloses that each of the optomechanical modules has the ability to change the parameters of the lens system (Fig. 2, modules 37-38 include lights 40 and 45, which may change the radiant intensity and radiant power of lenses 7-8) and/or a handle for additional trial lenses.
Regarding claim 4, Kim discloses that each of the side arms on which the optomechanical modules are mounted additionally has at least one vertical guideway (Fig. 5, 35-36 have vertical guideways 34a) perpendicular to the horizontal guideways (Fig. 5, 34a are perpendicular to 31a) embedded in an integrated housing (Figs. 1 & 5, 31a and 34a are embedded in 1), moreover it preferably has two symmetrically mounted selective mirrors (Fig. 9, 60 and 65).
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses that each optomechanical module has its own integrated screen ([0064], “display is divided into left and right regions and allocated to the left and right screen regions”).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood, Kim discloses that the optical tube with the lens system and/or the screen, are mounted on additional guideways (Fig. 4, 7-8 are mounted on guideways separate from 31a and 34a) and/or and are driven by servo drives and/or controlled from the computer.
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses that the cameras have an additional optical module (Fig. 2, 20 and 25 have 37-38) and a structured light projection module (Fig. 2, 20 and 25 have 40 and 45), enabling projection on the retina and observation by the cameras of the image of this light ([0039]) and automated measurement of the refractive error ([0005]).
Conclusion
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Daniel Jeffery Jordan whose telephone number is 571-270-7641. The examiner can normally be reached 9:30a-6:00p.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/D. J. J./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights