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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 11/11/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 17-19, 22-23, 25, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bartlett et al. US PGPub 2020/0345227 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 11/11/2024, hereinafter, “Bartlett”).
Regarding independent claim 14, Bartlett discloses a method of testing visual acuity of a test subject using a computing device (a method to self-test vision of a user with a handheld vision tester, abstract, and handheld device 100 is used to provide a vision test, par. [0031], Fig. 1a), the method comprising:
determining a separation distance between a test subject and an image capturing device of a computing device (the system can make appropriate measurements from the image 150, such as the distance between the pupils 160, to ensure that the user is at an acceptable distance from the handheld device 100, par. [0031]);
determining at least one property of a display screen of the computing device (Fig. 2a, test image includes a display 104 outer boundary 402, par. [0039]);
displaying a graphic to the test subject via the display screen (Fig. 2a, Landolt C 408 test image is suitable for use with the handheld device 100 and provides for a vision acuity check, par.[0039]), the graphic having at least one size dimension based on the separation distance and the at least one property of the display screen (Fig. 2a, it is important that the Landolt C 408 test be conducted at an appropriate viewing distance, and to test for a high level of vision acuity, the Landolt C 408 may appear rather small in the handheld device 100 display 104, par. [0039], and Bartlett discloses wherein the displayed vision test comprises a test image with an aspect adjusted based on said computed user viewing distance, refer to claim 49).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Bartlett discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the at least one property of the display screen includes an outer dimension or diagonal dimension of a viewable area of the display screen (Fig. 2a, a Landolt C 408 test image suitable for use with the handheld device 100 already described, and the test image includes a display 104 outer boundary 402, par. [0039]).
Regarding dependent claim 18, Bartlett discloses the method of claim 14, wherein determining the separation distance includes:
obtaining an image of a test subject via the image capturing device of the computing device (Fig. 1a, handheld device 100 includes camera 112 that may take a picture, see Fig. 1b), the image including a physical feature of the test subject (Fig. 1b, camera image 150 of user face 154 has dimensions between features of face 154 such as distance between pupils 160 and distance between the outer eye sockets 162, par. [0031]);
calculating an estimated size dimension of the physical feature based on a property of the image capturing device and an expected size dimension of the physical feature (Bartlett teaches by monitoring the distance between the pupils 160 and with the knowledge of the magnification afforded by the camera's 112 optics, it can be computed whether the user is a suitable distance from the handheld device 100, and camera 112 optics can be calibrated against an object of known physical size, par. [0031]);
determining the separation distance based on the estimated size dimension (the system can make appropriate measurements from the image 150, such as the distance between the pupils 160, to ensure that the user is at an acceptable distance from the handheld device 100, par. [0031]).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Bartlett discloses the method of claim 14, wherein determining the at least one property of the display screen of the computing device includes receiving the at least one property via a signal transmitted from the computing device (Bartlett teaches if an auxiliary display is used, the handheld device 100 may include hardware and software to ensure that proper display properties are available so that a reliable test may be completed, par. [0037]).
Regarding dependent claim 22, Bartlett discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the at least one size dimension of the graphic is inversely related to the at least one property of the display screen (Bartlett Fig. 2a, to test for a high level of vision acuity, the Landolt C 408 may appear rather small in the handheld device 100 display 104, par. [0039]).
Regarding dependent claim 23, Bartlett discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the image capturing device and the display screen are positioned in a single housing of the computing device (Fig. 1a, handheld device 100 includes case 102, display 104, and camera 112, par. [0028]).
Regarding dependent claim 25, Bartlett discloses a method of testing visual acuity of a test subject using a computing device (a method to self-test vision of a user with a handheld vision tester, abstract, and handheld device 100 is used to provide a vision test, par. [0031], Fig. 1a), the method comprising:
displaying, via a display screen of a computing device, a first graphical image for a test subject (Fig. 2a, Landolt C 408 test image is suitable for use with the handheld device 100 and provides for a vision acuity check, par.[0039]), the first graphical image having a first size dimension (Fig. 2a, Landolt C test image 408 has reference lines 406 and reference lines 406 are included to better define the region in which the Landolt C 408 is rotated, par. [0039]);
recording, via an input device of the computing device, a response input from the test subject (Fig. 6 is a flow chart 800 for a vision test routine controlled by a computer program, where a user-specific vision test or a standard test may be generated or accessed by the system software, where fourth step 814 runs the test while monitoring user’s viewing distance, and the time the user takes for each test input may be monitored, par. [0054], and third control step 816 checks to ensure that results from the test run in step 814 are reliable, par. [0056], and fourth control step 818 passes control to fifth step 822 where a data archive kept in the handheld device 100 may be updated with the new results and results may be provided to the user, par. [0059]);
calculating a test score based on the response input (handheld device 100 may also account for alternative viewing distances by scaling the user's resultant test score appropriately, par. [0034], and Fig. 6, fifth step 822 may be to notify the user of the test scores, which may be done visually on the handheld device 100 display 104, audibly, or by other means, par. [0061]);
displaying, via the display screen, a second graphical image for the test subject, the second graphical image having a second size dimension, the second size dimension being based on the test score (Fig. 6, fourth control step 818 may check specifically for change in vision and direct the program to fifth control step 820 which checks if an additional test is needed if significant changes may have occurred, and if fifth control step 820 finds that prior test results are not consistent, or if there are no prior results to compare to, a new user-specific test may be generated by third step 812 so that the user is not influenced by remembering how he or she responded to the prior test, par. [0058]).
Regarding dependent claim 28, Bartlett discloses the method of claim 25, wherein calculating the test score comprises:
detecting a set of test responses within the response input from the test subject ( Fig. 6, third control step 816 checks to ensure that results from the test run in step 814 are reliable, par. [0056]);
comparing each test response of the set of test responses to a set of expected test responses to obtain a set of correct test responses ( fourth control step 818 indicates a change in the users test results, control passes to fifth control step 820 where the results of the previous test are compared to the results of the present test, par. [0059] );
comparing a number of correct test responses in the set of correct test responses to a total number of test responses (Fig. 6, if a sufficient number of tests, where the system could be configured for any number of additional tests as desired, show consistent results, control also passes on to fifth step 822 for data archiving and presentation of the results to the user, par. [0059]).
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-7, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett in view of Vashishtha et al. US PGPub 2017/0169570 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 11/11/2024, hereinafter, “Vashishtha”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Bartlett discloses a method of testing visual acuity of a test subject using a computing device (a method to self-test vision of a user with a handheld vision tester, abstract, and handheld device 100 is used to provide a vision test, par. [0031], Fig. 1a), the method comprising:
obtaining an image of a test subject via an image capturing device of a computing device (Fig. 1a, handheld device 100 includes camera 112 that may take a picture, see Fig. 1b), the image including a first physical feature of the test subject and a second physical feature of the test subject (Fig. 1b, camera image 150 of user face 154 has dimensions between features of face 154 such as distance between pupils 160 and distance between the outer eye sockets 162, par. [0031]);
calculating an estimated first size dimension of the first physical feature based on a property of the image capturing device (Bartlett teaches by monitoring the distance between the pupils 160 and with the knowledge of the magnification afforded by the camera's 112 optics, it can be computed whether the user is a suitable distance from the handheld device 100, par. [0031]) and a first expected size dimension of the first physical feature (camera 112 optics can be calibrated against an object of known physical size, par. [0031]);
calculating an estimated second size dimension of the second physical feature based on the property of the image capturing device (Bartlett teaches by monitoring the distance between the outer eye sockets 162 of the user's face 154, and with the knowledge of the magnification afforded by the camera's 112 optics, it can be readily computed whether the user is a suitable distance from the handheld device 100, par. [0031]) and a second expected size dimension of the second physical feature (camera 112 optics can be calibrated against an object of known physical size, par. [0031]);
determining a separation distance between the test subject and the image capturing device based on the estimated first size dimension (the system can make appropriate measurements from the image 150, such as the distance between the pupils 160, to ensure that the user is at an acceptable distance from the handheld device 100, par. [0031]).
Bartlett does not disclose determining a separation distance based on the estimated first size dimension and the estimated second size dimension (Bartlett teaches that monitoring the distance between pupils 160 and with knowledge of the magnification of camera 112 the distance between user and camera can be computed, but Bartlett does not teach using two parameters, such as pupil distance 160 and outer eye sockets distance 162, for the determination of the distance).
In a related field of invention, Vashishtha discloses computing device 102 with camera-to-object (CTO) module 110 that calculates camera-to-object distance by detection of reference objects having known dimensions in a digital image, and to compare measurement of the reference objects to known physical dimensions of reference objects (pars. [0032], [0040], Fig. 2). CTO module 110 includes measurement module 208, whereupon receiving a digital image and identifying one or more reference features within the digital image, CTO module 110 may be configured to invoke a measurement module 208 to measure the one or more features within the digital image in pixels (par. [0043]). CTO module 110 includes camera-to-object distance calculator 210 which may use known physical dimensions 206 stored in storage 204 along with the one or more measurements of features by the measurement module 208 to determine a camera-to-object distance for the digital image (par. [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Vashishtha to the disclosure of Bartlett and included a modules for calculating camera-to-object (i.e., user) distance by measurement of features, such as the distance between the pupils 160 and the distance between the outer eye sockets 162 in the image with known physical dimensions, because Vashishtha teaches comparison of measured dimensions to known dimensions in real life, along with additional parameters related to the captured digital image such as focal length, height of the digital image, and sensor height of the camera, yields an accurate camera-to-object distance (Vashishtha, par. [0019]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Bartlett in view of Vashishtha (hereinafter, “modified Bartlett”) discloses the method of claim 1, and Bartlett discloses the method further comprising displaying a graphic to the test subject using a display screen of the computing device (Bartlett, Fig. 2a, Landolt C 408 test image is suitable for use with the handheld device 100 and provides for a vision acuity check, par.[0039]).
Regarding dependent claim 4, modified Bartlett discloses the method of claim 2, and Bartlett further discloses wherein a dimension of the graphic on the display screen is based on the separation distance (Bartlett, Fig. 2a, it is important that the Landolt C 408 test be conducted at an appropriate viewing distance, and to test for a high level of vision acuity, the Landolt C 408 may appear rather small in the handheld device 100 display 104, par. [0039]).
Regarding dependent claim 5, modified Bartlett discloses the method of claim 4, and Bartlett further discloses wherein the dimension of the graphic is static while displayed on the display screen (Bartlett, Fig. 2a, Landolt C 408 test is based on a user's ability to distinguish the orientation of the "C" as a function of how large the image is presented, par. [0040]).
Regarding dependent claim 6, modified Bartlett discloses the method of claim 4, and Bartlett further discloses wherein the dimension of the graphic is dynamically adjusted while displayed on the display screen based on a second determination of the separation distance between the test subject and the image capturing device (Bartlett teaches handheld device 100 may automatically compensate for differences in desired viewing distances for some or all of the tests provided, and by automatically compensating for changes in viewing distance, the handheld device 100 may make it easier for a user to take the test, par. [0034]).
Regarding dependent claim 7, modified Bartlett discloses the method of claim 1, and Vashishtha further discloses wherein the first physical feature includes a portion of an eye of the test subject (Vashishtha, one example of known physical dimensions that can be stored by CTO module 110 are constants established for the human eye, such as the horizontal visible iris diameter (HVID), par. [0042]).
Regarding dependent claim 9, modified Bartlett discloses the method of claim 1, and Vashishtha further discloses wherein the first expected size dimension is based on:
a mean size dimension of the first physical feature among test subjects having a characteristic in common with the test subject, or a median size dimension of the first physical feature among test subjects having a characteristic in common with the test subject (Vashishtha, an example of known physical dimensions that can be stored by CTO module 110 are constants established for the human eye, such as the horizontal visible iris diameter (HVID), par. [0042]).
Regarding dependent claim 12, modified Bartlett discloses the method of claim 1, and Bartlett and Vashishtha disclose the method further comprising detecting the property of the image capturing device by receiving device reference information from the computing device (Bartlett teaches if an auxiliary display is used, the handheld device 100 may include hardware and software to ensure that proper viewing distance and display properties are available so that a reliable test may be completed, par. [0037], and Vashishtha, parameters may be obtained directly or indirectly from metadata associated with the image, which may be associated with images by metadata generator 114, par. [0049]).
Claims 20-21 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartlett as applied to claim 14 above.
Regarding dependent claim 20, Bartlett discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the at least one size dimension of the graphic is related to the separation distance (Bartlett teaches handheld device 100 may compensate for some variations in the viewing distance by adjusting the size of the test image presented in the display 104 or by varying other aspects of the test image, for example, viewing distance may also be compensated to some degree with the sharpness of the test image or by other factors, par. [0034]).
Bartlett does not specifically teach an inverse relationship between graphic dimension and separation distance, but Bartlett does teach it is possible to use dynamic images for vision testing on the handheld device 100, wherein images that open or close (expand or contract), or move in other ways can be observed and/or compared to other dynamic or static images to help test for vision capability (par. [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified a vision test using electronic handheld device 100 to have a relationship between a graphic displayed, such as a Landolt C test image, and the separation distance to be inversely related, such that the Landolt C test graphic would dynamically decrease in dimension with increasing separation distance, because Bartlett teaches to test for a high level of vision acuity, the Landolt C 408 may appear rather small in the handheld device 100 display 104 (Bartlett, par. [0039]).
Regarding dependent claim 21, Bartlett discloses the method of claim 14, wherein the at least one size dimension of the graphic is related to the at least one property of the display screen (Bartlett teaches handheld device 100 may compensate for some variations in the viewing distance by adjusting the size of the test image presented in the display 104 or by varying other aspects of the test image, for example, viewing distance may also be compensated to some degree with the sharpness of the test image or by other factors, par. [0034]).
Bartlett does not specifically teach a direct relationship between graphic dimension and display screen properties, but Bartlett does teach it is possible to use dynamic images for vision testing on the handheld device 100, wherein images that open or close (expand or contract), or move in other ways can be observed and/or compared to other dynamic or static images to help test for vision capability (par. [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified a vision test using electronic handheld device 100 to have a relationship between a graphic displayed, such as a Landolt C test image, and the display screen properties to be directly related, such that the Landolt C test graphic would adjust according to the screen dimensions, because Bartlett teaches to test for a high level of vision acuity, the Landolt C 408 may appear rather small in the handheld device 100 display 104 (Bartlett, par. [0039]).
Regarding dependent claim 29, Bartlett discloses the method of claim 25, but does not specifically disclose wherein the second size dimension is decreased relative to the first size dimension based on the test score exceeding a threshold score value (Bartlett teaches it is possible to use dynamic images for vision testing on the handheld device 100, such as images that open or close (expand or contract), or move in other ways can be observed and/or compared to other dynamic or static images to help test for vision capability, par. [0043], but does not teach or suggest a second size dimension is decreased relative to the first size dimension based on a threshold score).
However, Bartlett teaches it is possible to use dynamic images for vision testing on the handheld device 100. Images that open or close (expand or contract), or move in other ways can be observed and/or compared to other dynamic or static images to help test for vision capability (par. [0043]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified a vision test using electronic handheld device 100 to have a relationship between a graphic displayed, such as a Landolt C test image, and the relative dimensions of the graphic to be adjusted, such that the Landolt C test graphic would adjust decrease in one dimension relative to another dimension that remains static, because Bartlett teaches to test for a high level of vision acuity, the Landolt C 408 may appear rather small in the handheld device 100 display 104 (Bartlett, par. [0039]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Berry et al. US PGPub 2014/0168606 A1 discloses a method for conducting vision examination tests, including visual acuity tests, with a portable consumer device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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 L 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights