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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/12/2025 and 05/05/2026 have been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claims 77 and 90 are objected to because of the following informalities containing apparent inadvertent typographical errors:
Examiner suggests "image display device of claim 71, wherein
Examiner suggests “to track at least one of eye state and eye position during one or both of subjective
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
at least one lens of the second cylinder correction lens group moves, in claim 74
a third optical pathway configured to merge a view of the surroundings of the tested subject with any of the images and testing pattern of the optical pathway and the second optical pathway, in claim 84
the optical pathway of the image display device is duplicated, in claim 85
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an optical pathway configured to project an image” in claim 711
“subjective eye refraction testing image” in claim 82
“projection of images and test patterns”, “configured to project an objective refraction testing pattern”, the optical pathway projects a target image”, “visual fixation and/or accommodation control”, “the second optical pathway operates to project the objective refraction testing pattern” in claim 83
“images and testing pattern of the optical pathway and the second optical pathway” in claim 84
“configured to project a subjective eye refraction testing image”, “subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered image”, “objective refraction testing pattern binocularly registered image” in claim 85
“configured to project a subjective eye refraction testing image on a retina of a subject is configured to project a sequence of the subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered images” in claim 86
“configured to project a subjective eye refraction testing image on a retina of a subject is configured to project a sequence of binocularly registered images on each retina of the subject as binocularly registered images”, “objective refraction testing for fixation and accommodation control” in claim 87
“the sequence of subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered images”, “a sequence of perceptually unified images comprising depth cues” in claim 88
“configured to project a subjective eye refraction testing image sequence of binocularly registered images”, “produces a sequence of perceptually unified images comprising depth cues”, “objective refraction testing for fixation and accommodation control” in claim 89
“subjective eye refraction testing image”, “objective refraction testing pattern” in claim 90
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 76, 78, and 88-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 76, the limitation “each beam having a geometrical center and wherein an envelope defined by encasing the geometrical centers of the beams has an approximately constant size between the first and second cylinder correction lens groups and on a lens group which form an optical pupil, for a range of distances between the first and second cylindrical lens group, corresponding to a range of at least 2 diopters, the lens group which forms the optical pupil is positioned on the optical pathway after the first and second cylindrical correction lens groups” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
The language is confusingly, such that it renders the claim nearly incomprehensible. It is unclear what “optical pupil” is referring to. The term “optical pupil” could mean an intermediate image, the pupil of an eye, a physical aperture, a virtual aperture, a waist, etc. There is no definition provided in the specification. Further, the language of “each beam having a geometrical center and wherein an envelope defined by encasing the geometrical centers of the beams has an approximately constant size between the first and second cylinder correction lens groups and on a lens group which form an optical pupil” is confusing and grammatically incomprehensible. It is unclear what is meant by “and on a lens group which form an optical pupil” in context with the language which came before it. Additionally, the term “the first and second cylindrical lens group” in lines 6-7 lacks sufficient antecedent basis.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes that there must be an additional lens group positioned on the optical pathway after the first and second cylindrical correction lens groups, and that if this structure is met then there must be an optical pupil formed, and further that this limitation means that the first and second cylindrical correction lens groups are acting on collimated light. Examiner additionally assumes “the first and second cylindrical correction lens groups”.
Regarding claim 78, the limitation “the image display device forms an optical pupil to the eye” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear what “optical pupil” is referring to. The term “optical pupil” could mean an intermediate image, the pupil of an eye, a physical aperture, a virtual aperture, a waist, etc. There is no definition provided in the specification.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes as long as the configuration of the lenses is met, that an optical pupil must be formed by the lenses.
Regarding claims 88-89, the limitation “perceptually unified images” raises clarity issues. It is unclear how this limitation should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
It is unclear what a “perceptually unified image” is. Based on common language, one would assume that it refers to a single image as opposed to multiple images. However, there is no structure described or claimed that would result in a “perceptually unified image”. Claim 85, on which claims 88-89 are dependent, state that the optical pathway is duplicated. However, the duplicated optical pathway is never shown, therefore one cannot determine what is structurally causing the image to be “perceptually unified”. There is also no claimed image source. It is unclear whether the image source is additionally being duplicated and that both image sources must show the same image, which results in a perceptually unified image, or if there is only a single image source and the lenses are duplicated, resulting in a perceptually unified image. Further, since the brain inherently perceives a single unified image as a result of light focusing onto both eyes, it is unclear whether the “perceptually unified image” is an inherent feature that is being performed by a user’s brain, or if this refers to some optical configuration.
For the purposes of examination, examiner assumes “perceptually unified image” is an inherent feature due to the fact that a brain does not register two separate images from each eye.
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.
Claim(s) 71-72, 75-79, 81-83, and 85 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii et al. (US 20180064339 A1), hereinafter Takii, in view of Toth (US 3936163 A).
Regarding independent claim 71, Takii discloses an image display device, comprising:
an optical pathway (25; Fig. 2; ¶0120-¶0131) configured to project an image onto a retina of an eye (¶0009, ¶0038-¶0040), and including cylindrical lenses (61a, 61b; Fig. 2; ¶0125) which introduce varying cylindrical optical power and a varying cylindrical optical axis (¶0125) to beams impinging on the retina to produce the image (Fig. 2; ¶0125);
wherein the cylindrical lenses (61a, 61b) comprise a first cylinder correction lens group (61a; Fig. 2; ¶0125) and a second cylinder correction lens group (62b; Fig. 2; ¶0125), each group comprising at least one cylindrical lens (Fig. 2; ¶0125).
Takii does not disclose wherein the first and second cylinder correction lens groups: have cylindrical optical powers of opposite signs; adjust together to introduce the varying cylindrical axis while maintaining a predetermined relative alignment of their respective cylindrical axes; and adjust by changing their distance to each other to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power.
However, Toth teaches a similar device comprising an optical pathway configured to project light onto an eye (Fig. 2) including cylindrical lenses (16, 18; Fig. 2; abstract; col. 3 lines 31-56) which introduce varying cylindrical optical power and a varying cylindrical optical axis (cylindrical correction is obtained by a combination of rotation and extension of the second cylindrical lens to produce variable negative cylindrical power and axis orientation; abstract, col. 3 lines 31-56); wherein the cylindrical lenses (16, 18) comprise a first cylinder correction lens group (16; Fig. 2; abstract, col. 3 lines 31-56) and a second cylinder correction lens group (18; Fig. 2; abstract, col. 3 lines 31-56), each group comprising at least one cylindrical lens (abstract, col. 3 lines 31-56); and wherein the first and second cylinder correction lens groups (16, 18): have cylindrical optical powers of opposite signs (col. 4 lines 39-59); adjust together to introduce the varying cylindrical axis while maintaining a predetermined relative alignment of their respective cylindrical axes (abstract, col. 3 lines 31-56, col. 5 lines 60-65); and adjust by changing their distance to each other to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power (abstract, col. 4 lines 39-59.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takii to incorporate the first and second cylindrical correction lens groups having opposite powers and being configured to rotate together and have an adjustable distance between them as taught by Toth for the purpose of having a vision examination lens system which produces a smooth variation in spherical cylindrical power and axis rotation (col. 3 lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 72, Takii in view of Toth discloses the image display device of claim 71, with Toth including wherein the first and second cylinder correction lens groups have cylindrical optical powers of opposite signs, adjust together to introduce the varying cylindrical axis while maintaining a predetermined relative alignment of their respective cylindrical axes, and adjust by changing their distance to each other to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power, as set forth above. Toth further teaches the first and second cylinder correction lens groups (16, 18) rotate together around an optical axis of the optical pathway to introduce the varying cylindrical axis (abstract, col. 3 lines 31-56, col. 5 lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 75, Takii in view of Toth discloses the image display device of claim 71, as set forth above. Takii further discloses the first and second cylinder correction lens groups (61a, 61b) are positioned within a telecentric region of the beams (implicit from Fig. 2 wherein first and second cylinder correction lens groups 61a and 61b are positioned between projection lenses 33 and 34).
Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Takii in view of Toth has all the claimed elements of an image display device, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the first and second cylinder correction lens groups positioned within a telecentric region of the beams for the purpose of acting on collimated light to effectively calibrate a cylindrical power (¶0125 of Takii).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second cylinder correction lens groups positioned within a telecentric region of the beams for the purpose acting on collimated light to effectively calibrate a cylindrical power (¶0125 of Takii).
Regarding claim 76, Takii in view of Toth discloses the image display device of claim 71, as set forth above. Takii further discloses the beams are individually imaged to focal positions on the retina (¶0009); each beam having a geometrical center and an envelope defined by encasing the geometrical centers of the beams (this is an inherent characteristic of light rays passing through an optical system), and a lens group (34; Fig. 2; ¶0122) which forms an optical pupil positioned on the optical pathway after the first and second cylindrical correction lens groups (61a, 61b) (implicit that an optical pupil would be formed at some point after the lenses 33, 61a, 61b, and 34 in Fig. 2). Toth further teaches a range of distances between the first and second cylindrical lens group (16, 18) corresponding to a range of at least 2 diopters (col. 4 lines 39-59). Neither Takii nor Toth explicitly disclose the envelope defined by encasing the geometrical centers of the beams has an approximately constant size between the first and second cylinder correction lens groups and on a lens group which form an optical pupil, for the range of distances between the first and second cylindrical lens group.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Takii in view of Toth has all the claimed elements of an image display device, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have the envelope defined by encasing the geometrical centers of the beams has an approximately constant size between the first and second cylinder correction lens groups and on a lens group which form an optical pupil for the range of distances between the first and second cylindrical lens group for the purpose of acting on collimated light to effectively calibrate a cylindrical power (¶0125 of Takii).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the envelope defined by encasing the geometrical centers of the beams has an approximately constant size between the first and second cylinder correction lens groups and on a lens group which form an optical pupil for the range of distances between the first and second cylindrical lens group for the purpose of acting on collimated light to effectively calibrate a cylindrical power (¶0125 of Takii).
Regarding claim 77, Takii in view of Toth discloses the image display device of claim 71, with Toth including wherein the first and second cylinder correction lens groups have cylindrical optical powers of opposite signs, adjust together to introduce the varying cylindrical axis while maintaining a predetermined relative alignment of their respective cylindrical axes, and adjust by changing their distance to each other to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power, as set forth above. Toth further teaches first and second cylinder correction lens groups (16, 18) adjust their distance to each other to change cylindrical correction power through a range of at least 2 diopters (col. 4 lines 39-59).
Regarding claim 78, Takii in view of Toth discloses the image display device of claim 71, as set forth above. Takii further discloses the image display device forms an optical pupil to the eye having a first diameter in a direction wherein the diameter is maximally affected by the varying cylindrical optical power (inherent for beam diameter to be affected by varying cylindrical optical power), and a second diameter orthogonal to the first diameter (inherent for there to be a second diameter). Toth further teaches a range of 0 to at least four diopters of adjustment (col. 4 lines 20-25). Toth does not explicitly disclose throughout a range of 0 to at least four diopters of adjustment, a ratio of the first and second diameters remains less than 3.
However, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955), see MPEP 2144.05. In this case Takii in view of Toth has all the claimed elements of an image display device, fulfilling the general conditions of the claim. One would be motivated to have a ratio of the first and second diameters remains less than 3 throughout a range of 0 to at least four diopters of adjustment for the purpose of being able to effectively calibrate a cylindrical power (¶0125 of Takii) without introducing a cylindrical power that would fall outside of the range of correction for an eye.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a ratio of the first and second diameters remains less than 3 throughout a range of 0 to at least four diopters of adjustment for the purpose of being able to effectively calibrate a cylindrical power (¶0125 of Takii) without introducing a cylindrical power that would fall outside of the range of correction for an eye.
Regarding claim 79, Takii in view of Toth discloses the image display device of claim 71, as set forth above. Takii further discloses comprising display illumination (31; Fig. 2; ¶0039) which generates the image (¶0039), wherein the display illumination comprises at least one of the group consisting of: a μLED display, a μOLED display, LED display (¶0039), an OLED display, a QDLED display, an LCD display, and LCOS source, a DLP source, and a scanned beam source.
Regarding claim 81, Takii in view of Toth discloses the image display device of claim 71, with Toth already including wherein the first and second cylinder correction lens groups have cylindrical optical powers of opposite signs, adjust together to introduce the varying cylindrical axis while maintaining a predetermined relative alignment of their respective cylindrical axes, and adjust by changing their distance to each other to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power, as set forth above. Toth further teaches the first cylinder correction lens group (16) correspond to a first cylindrical power axis and the second cylinder correction lens group (18) correspond to a second cylindrical power axis and wherein the mutual alignment of the first cylindrical power axis and the second cylindrical power axis is within 5 of each other (parallel; col. 4 lines 53-55).
Regarding claim 82, Takii in view of Toth discloses an eye examination device (Fig. 2) comprising the image display device of claim 71, as set forth above. Takii further discloses said optical pathway (25) of the image display device (Fig. 2) is configured to project a subjective eye refraction testing image onto the retina (¶0121).
Regarding claim 83, Takii in view of Toth discloses the optical pathway of claim 82, as set forth above. Takii further discloses an eye examination device (Fig. 2) configured to perform both subjective and objective refraction testing (¶0006-¶0010), including, during testing, projection of images and test patterns onto at least a first retina of a tested subject (¶0038-¶0039), the eye examination device comprising:
the optical pathway of claim 82 (see above);
a second optical pathway (10; Fig. 2; ¶0132-¶0144), configured to project an objective refraction testing pattern onto the first retina (¶0048), and comprising a sensor (22; Fig. 2; ¶0141) which detects light returning from the first retina from the objective refraction pattern (Fig. 2; ¶0137);
wherein the optical pathway (25) projects a target image onto the first retina as a target for visual fixation (¶0123) and/or accommodation control for the subject while the second optical pathway (10) operates to project the objective refraction testing pattern (¶0124).
Regarding claim 85, Takii in view of Toth discloses the eye examination device of claim 83, as set forth above. Takii further discloses the optical pathway (25) of the image display device configured to project a subjective eye refraction testing image on a retina of a subject is duplicated (Fig. 3; ¶0151) for producing one or more of: (a) a subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered image on each retina of the subject (the visual target image calibrated by a pair of right and left calibration optical systems is formed on the fundi of both eyes; ¶0163); and (b) an objective refraction testing pattern binocularly registered image on each retina of the subject.
Claim(s) 73-74 and 80 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii (US 20180064339 A1) in view of Toth (US 3936163 A) and further in view of Guyton (US 4105303 A).
Regarding claim 73, Takii in view of Toth discloses the image display device of claim 72, with Toth including wherein the first and second cylinder correction lens groups have cylindrical optical powers of opposite signs, adjust together to introduce the varying cylindrical axis while maintaining a predetermined relative alignment of their respective cylindrical axes, and adjust by changing their distance to each other to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power, as set forth above. Neither Takii nor Toth disclose at least the second cylinder correction lens group comprises a plurality of cylindrical lenses; and cylinder optical powers of the plurality of cylindrical lenses combine along the optical pathway to produce the cylindrical optical power of opposite sign to the first cylinder correction lens group; wherein the second cylinder correction lens group comprises at least one lens on either side of at least one lens of the first cylinder correction lens group.
However, Guyton teaches a similar device for eye examination comprising an optical pathway configured to project an image onto an eye (Fig. 3), and including cylindrical lenses which introduce varying cylindrical optical power and a varying cylindrical optical axis to beams impinging on the eye to produce the image (Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8); wherein the cylindrical lenses comprise a first cylinder correction lens group (26; Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8) and a second cylinder correction lens group (24, 25; Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8), each group comprising at least one cylindrical lens (Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8); and wherein the first and second cylinder correction lens groups adjust together to introduce the varying cylindrical axis while maintaining a predetermined relative alignment of their respective cylindrical axes (lens group 31 may be rotated as a unit about the optical axis; Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8); and adjust by changing their distance to each other to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power (axial movement of lens 26 alone produces a variation in the simulated cylindrical power; Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8), wherein the first and second cylinder correction lens groups rotate together (Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8) around an optical axis of the optical pathway to introduce the varying cylindrical axis (inherent this would cause a varying cylindrical axis).
Guyton further teaches at least the second cylinder correction lens group (24, 25) comprises a plurality of cylindrical lenses (24, 25; Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8); and cylinder optical powers of the plurality of cylindrical lenses combine along the optical pathway to produce the cylindrical optical power (Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8); wherein the second cylinder correction lens group (24, 25) comprises at least one lens on either side of at least one lens of the first cylinder correction lens group (26) (Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takii in view of Toth to incorporate the second cylinder correction lens group having a plurality of cylindrical lenses as taught by Guyton for the purpose of having fewer optical aberrations (col. 11 lines 63-68 of Guyton).
Regarding claim 74, Takii in view of Toth and further in view of Guyton discloses the image display device of claim 73, with Toth including wherein the first and second cylinder correction lens groups have cylindrical optical powers of opposite signs, adjust together to introduce the varying cylindrical axis while maintaining a predetermined relative alignment of their respective cylindrical axes, and adjust by changing their distance to each other to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power, and with Guyton including the second cylinder correction lens group has a plurality of lenses, as set forth above.
Toth further teaches at least one lens (18) of the second cylinder correction lens group (18) moves along the optical pathway to vary the introduced cylindrical optical power (col. 4 lines 39-59), and there is at least one position of the at least one lens (18) of the second cylinder correction lens group (18) which cancels cylindrical optical power of the first cylinder correction lens group (16) (col. 4 lines 39-59).
Regarding claim 80, Takii in view of Toth and further in view of Guyton discloses the image display device of claim 73, with Toth including the first and second cylinder correction lens groups have cylindrical optical powers of opposite signs, adjust together to introduce the varying cylindrical axis while maintaining a predetermined relative alignment of their respective cylindrical axes, and adjust by changing their distance to each other to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power, and with Guyton including the second cylinder correction lens group has a plurality of lenses, as set forth above.
Toth further teaches at least one position of the at least one lens (16) of the first cylinder correction lens group (16) cancels the cylindrical optical power of the second cylinder correction lens group (18) (col. 4 lines 39-59).
Guyton further teaches said at least one lens (26) of the first cylinder correction lens group (26) is moveable between said at least one lens (24, 25) on either side from said second cylinder correction lens group (24, 25), and along an optical axis of the optical pathway to introduce the varying cylindrical optical power (Fig. 3; col. 11 line 5 – col. 12 line 8).
Claim(s) 84 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii (US 20180064339 A1) in view of Toth (US 3936163 A) and further in view of Dave et al. (US 20240225442 A1), hereinafter Dave.
Regarding claim 84, Takii in view of Toth discloses the eye examination device of claim 83, as set forth above. Neither Takii nor Toth disclose a third optical pathway, configured to merge a view of the surroundings of the tested subject with any of the images and testing pattern of the optical pathway and the second optical pathway.
However, Dave teaches an eye examination device (Fig. 20) comprising an optical pathway (optical path including 2088; Fig. 20), a second optical pathway (optical path including 2084; Fig. 20), and a third optical pathway (optical path including 2096), wherein the third optical pathway is configured to merge a view of the surroundings of the tested subject with any of the images and testing pattern of the optical pathway and the second optical pathway (Fig. 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takii in view of Toth to incorporate the third optical pathway for the purpose of keeping the eye relaxed such that refractive measurements performed by the apparatus can be improved (¶0112 of Dave).
Claim(s) 86-90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takii (US 20180064339 A1) in view of Toth (US 3936163 A) and further in view of Lussier et al. (US 20210255701 A1), hereinafter Lussier.
Regarding claim 86, Takii in view of Toth discloses the eye examination device of claim 85, as set forth above. Takii further discloses the optical pathway of the image display device configured to project a subjective eye refraction testing image on a retina of a subject (Fig. 2) is configured to project the subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered image on each retina of the subject (Figs. 2-3; ¶0161-¶0163). Neither Takii nor Toth disclose the optical pathway is configured to project a sequence of the subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered images.
However, Lussier teaches an eye examination device with an adjustable refractive optical system (¶0013-¶0014) comprising a display (¶0003) which is configured to project a sequence of subjective eye refraction testing images (¶0247).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takii in view of Toth to incorporate having a sequence of the subjective eye refracting testing images displayed as taught by Lussier for the purpose of determining the vision correction parameters for prescribing corrective eyewear or surgery (¶0010-¶0011 of Lussier).
Regarding claim 87, Takii in view of Toth discloses the eye examination device of claim 85, as set forth above. Takii further discloses the optical pathway of the image display device configured to project a subjective eye refraction testing image on a retina of a subject (Fig. 2) is configured to project binocularly registered images on each retina of the subject as binocularly registered images on each retina of the subject (¶0161-¶0163) during the objective refraction testing for fixation (¶0110) and accommodation control (implicit from ¶0188 that this function can be performed). Neither Takii nor Toth disclose the optical pathway is configured to project a sequence of the subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered images.
However, Lussier teaches an eye examination device with an adjustable refractive optical system (¶0013-¶0014) comprising a display (¶0003) which is configured to project a sequence of subjective eye refraction testing images (¶0247).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takii in view of Toth to incorporate having a sequence of the subjective eye refracting testing images displayed as taught by Lussier for the purpose of determining the vision correction parameters for prescribing corrective eyewear or surgery (¶0010-¶0011 of Lussier).
Regarding claim 88, Takii in view of Toth and further in view of Lussier discloses the eye examination device of claim 86, with Lussier including the sequence of subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered images on each retina of the subject, as set forth above. Takii further discloses the subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered image produces a perceptually unified image (inherent, see 112(b) rejection above). Neither Takii nor Toth disclose a sequence of perceptually unified images comprising depth cues, such that a perceptually unified image from the sequence of perceptually unified images appears to the subject as having different depth than at least one other perceptually unified image from the sequence of perceptually unified images.
However, Lussier teaches a sequence of perceptually unified images (inherent, see 112(b) above) comprising depth cues (¶0247, ¶0003, ¶0008-¶0009, ¶0050) such that a perceptually unified image from the sequence of perceptually unified images appears to the subject as having different depth than at least one other perceptually unified image from the sequence of perceptually unified images (¶0247, ¶0003, ¶0008-¶0009, ¶0050).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takii in view of Toth to incorporate having a sequence of the subjective eye refracting testing images displayed with different depths as taught by Lussier for the purpose of determining the vision correction parameters for prescribing corrective eyewear or surgery and to subjectively assess a user’s reduced visual acuity (¶0010-¶0011, ¶0050 of Lussier).
Regarding claim 89, Takii in view of Toth and further in view of Lussier discloses the eye examination device of claim 87, with Lussier including the optical pathway of the image display device configured to project a subjective eye refraction testing image sequence of binocularly registered images on each retina of the subject during the objective refraction testing for fixation and accommodation control, as set forth above. Takii further discloses the subjective eye refraction testing binocularly registered image produces a perceptually unified image (inherent, see 112(b) rejection above). Neither Takii nor Toth disclose a sequence of perceptually unified images comprising depth cues, such that a perceptually unified image from the sequence of perceptually unified images appears to the subject as having different depth than at least one other perceptually unified image from the sequence of perceptually unified images.
However, Lussier teaches a sequence of perceptually unified images (inherent, see 112(b) above) comprising depth cues (¶0247, ¶0003, ¶0008-¶0009, ¶0050) such that a perceptually unified image from the sequence of perceptually unified images appears to the subject as having different depth than at least one other perceptually unified image from the sequence of perceptually unified images (¶0247, ¶0003, ¶0008-¶0009, ¶0050).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takii in view of Toth to incorporate having a sequence of the subjective eye refracting testing images displayed with different depths as taught by Lussier for the purpose of determining the vision correction parameters for prescribing corrective eyewear or surgery and to subjectively assess a user’s reduced visual acuity (¶0010-¶0011, ¶0050 of Lussier).
Regarding claim 90, Takii in view of Toth discloses the eye examination device of claim 83, as set forth above. Takii further discloses one or both of subjective eye refraction testing and objective refraction testing. Neither Takii nor Toth disclose at least one eye tracking device configured to track at least one of eye state and eye position.
However, Lussier teaches an eye examination device with an adjustable refractive optical system (¶0013-¶0014) comprising at least one eye tracking device configured to track at least one of eye state and eye position (¶0022).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takii in view of Toth to incorporate the eye tracking device as taught by Lussier for the purpose of compensating for the user’s eye location and production the correct virtual image in real time (¶0140 of Lussier).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Sebag et al. (US 20230404387 A1), Seesselberg et al. (US 20200029805 A1), Trumm et al. (US 20150313463 A1), Yamada (US 4679921 A), and Guyton (US 3664631 A) disclose similar eye examination devices comprising cylindrical lenses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 13th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 In claim 71 and the other claims listed with language similar to “project an image”, “subjective eye refraction testing image”, “objective refraction testing pattern”, “binocularly registered image”, “perceptually unified image”, etc., there is no image source claimed. The claims recite “an image display device”, however only the optical path of lenses is detailed. Examiner interprets there must be some image source that is producing the image and/or pattern, such as in claim 79.
Prosecution Insights