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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1-5 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 1 recites the limitation "the ellipse’s contour". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the ellipse’s contour” will be read as “an ellipse’s contour”.
Claims 2-5 are dependent on claim 1 and therefore rejected for at least the same reasons.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the orientations of the major axes of the two ellipses". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the orientations of the major axes of the two ellipses” will be read as “orientations of major axes of two ellipses”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the difference between the orientations". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the difference between the orientations” will be read as “a difference between orientations”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "ellipses of the same ellipticity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “ellipses of the same ellipticity” will be read as “ellipses of a same ellipticity”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "for the left and right eyes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “for the left and right eyes” will be read as “for left and right eyes”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "of the principle axes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “of the principle axes” will be read as “of principle axes”.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the first type of dyslexia". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the first type of dyslexia” will be read as “a first type of dyslexia”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "profiles of the same ellipticity". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “profiles of the same ellipticity” will be read as “profiles of a same ellipticity”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "of the main axes". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “of the main axes” will be read as “of main axes”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the second type of dyslexia". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the second type of dyslexia” will be read as “a second type of dyslexia”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the various asymmetry gaps". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes “the various asymmetry gaps” will be read as “various asymmetry gaps”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The phrase “may include color LEDs” does not positively require colored LEDs and therefore does not clearly narrow the device of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
The above 112 rejected claims will be interpreted, as best understood, in light of the specification, unless otherwise stated.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Limon (US 2016/0120402) in view of Ikeura et al. (US 2019/0268576) in view of Schutte (WO 2011021936, Examiner has provided a PDF copy).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Limon discloses a device for measuring orientations related to possible ellipticities of Maxwell spot centroids devoid of blue cones of each eye in people with dyslexia, characterized in that it comprises:
an electronic control and measurement system UCM ([0014] discloses: optometric testing software, to display target images imputing subjective feedback and other input data, instructing the subject and outputting test results) creating an ellipse ([0027] discloses: a unique pattern target image where the basic block is elliptical tilted shape) with a major axis orientation adjustable ([0029] discloses: displaying the unique pattern target image over the display area rotated to an angle of astigmatism of the subject), projected onto a screen ([0077] discloses: image displayed over a screen; [0109] discloses: projector device used with a screen), illuminating a screen on which the ellipse's contour is projected simultaneously ([0029] discloses: displaying the unique pattern target image over the display area; [0032] discloses: display unit defining a display area; [0146] discloses: display unit and projection unit, measurement can be carried out using a single device; Examiner notes that this is considered to be the display and projection unit used simultaneously, as displays areas of smartphones, see [0076], are considered to have at least a backlight to illuminate the screen).
Limon fails to disclose a device a major axis orientation adjustable to within 2° and a lighting system of an order of 2,000 to 4,000 lumens, and with tracking and display for both eyes and their angular difference.
However, optimizing axis orientation precision would have been within the level of ordinary skill and would be routine experimentation. See MPEP 2144.05 II (A). “Where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. ”In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Furthermore, “a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation ”In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). [I]f the prior art does recognize that the variable affects the relevant property or result, then the variable is result-effective. In the case at hand, Limon discusses in [0082] and [0069] that changing and refining the target angle produces higher angular precision and therefore establishes axis orientation precision as a variable which achieves a recognized result. Doing so would allow the target orientation to be matched more closely to the observed ocular orientation thereby improving the precision of the resulting measurement. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to disclose a major axis orientation adjustable to within 2° since it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Limon fails to disclose a lighting system of an order of 2,000 to 4,000 lumens, with tracking and display for both eyes and their angular difference. Limon and Ikeura are related because both disclose projection devices.
Ikeura teaches a lighting system ([0071] teaches: EL1, excitation light) of an order of 2,000 to 4,000 lumens ([0071] teaches: EL1, excitation light, between 2500 and 3000 lumens). Limon and Schutte are related because both disclose eye testing apparatus.
Schutte teaches a device with tracking and display for both eyes ([0010] teaches: measuring reflections in both eyes) and their angular difference ([0053] teaches: using angular difference via angle kappa of patient, see [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Limon in view of Ikeura and Schutte and provide and a lighting system of an order of 2,000 to 4,000 lumens, and tracking and display for both eyes and their angular difference. Doing so would allow for the adjustable elliptical target to be visually aligned with the observed profile, thereby improving the precision and repeatability of the orientation measurement.
The Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language, “[a] device for measuring orientations related to possible ellipticities of Maxwell spot centroids devoid of blue cones of each eye in people with dyslexia”, may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Limon (US 2016/0120402) in view of Ikeura et al. (US 2019/0268576) in view of Schutte (WO 2011021936), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Sakagawa (US 2013/0208243) in view of Abou Shousha et al. (US 2019/0391398) in view of Slavin (4,522,474).
Regarding claim 2, as best understood, the modified Limon discloses the device according to claim 1, so as to be able to define a type of dyslexia (Examiner notes that the recitation, so as to be able to define a type of dyslexia, states the intended diagnostic use of the measured angular difference and does not further structurally limit the claimed device).
Limon fails to disclose a device characterized in that it comprises means for measuring and displaying orientations of major axes of two ellipses and their difference, between the two Maxwell spot centroids. Limon and Sakagawa are related because both disclose optical devices.
Sakagawa teaches a device characterized in that it comprises means for measuring and displaying ([0007] teaches: ophthalmologic apparatus capable of obtaining measurement and test results about an eye; [0027] teaches: LCD monitor to display measurement results) orientations of major axes of two ellipses ([0033] teaches: using angle formed between horizontal axis and major and minor axis of ellipse for ophthalmologic imaging data). Limon and Abou Shousha are related because both disclose optical testing devices.
Abou Shousha teaches a device wherein measurements includes the difference, between the two measurements ([0150] teaches: torsional displacement of eye structures detected and measured). Limon and Slavin are related because both disclose optical testing devices.
Slavin teaches a device wherein the measurements include maxwell spot centroids (Col. 1 lines 55-60 teach: using maxwell spot to distinguish between pathological affections of the fovea).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Limon in view of Sakagawa Abou Shousha and Slavin and provide a device characterized in that it comprises means for measuring and displaying orientations of major axes of two ellipses and their difference, between the two Maxwell spot centroids. Doing so would allow for the system to obtain and present corresponding measurements for both eyes using a single integrated examination platform, thereby improving the amount and organization of measurement information available to the user.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Limon (US 2016/0120402) in view of Ikeura et al. (US 2019/0268576) in view of Schutte (WO 2011021936), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Rosen et al. (US 2015/0320547).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood, the modified Limon discloses the device according to claim 1, in that it measures a difference between orientations to within 2° of two ellipses of a same ellipticity for left and right eyes (Schutte: [0010] teaches: measuring reflections in both eyes; [0053] teaches: using angular difference via angle kappa of patient, see [0063]; see optimization rejection under claim 1, which also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged), leading to a first type of dyslexia (Examiner notes that the recitation, so as to be able to define a type of dyslexia, states the intended diagnostic use of the measured angular difference and does not further structurally limit the claimed device).
Limon fails to disclose a device with opposite orientations of principal axes. Limon and Rosen are related because both disclose optical devices.
Rosen teaches a device with opposite orientations of the principal axes ([0186] teaches: binocular mirror symmetry where the coma in right and left eye have same magnitude but opposite sign; therefore considered analogous to opposite orientations of the principle axes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Limon in view of Rosen and provide a device with opposite orientations of the principal axes. Doing so would allow for characterized mirrored relationships between corresponding measurements of the two eyes, thereby facilitating bilateral comparison.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Limon (US 2016/0120402) in view of Ikeura et al. (US 2019/0268576) in view of Schutte (WO 2011021936), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Ragland (US 2013/0083976).
Regarding claim 4, as best understood, the modified Limon discloses the device according to claim 1, leading to a second type of dyslexia corresponding to duplication of letters and words, particularly in certain people with dyslexia with reading difficulties due to duplication (Examiner notes that the recitation, leading to a second type of dyslexia corresponding to duplication of letters and words, particularly in certain people with dyslexia with reading difficulties due to duplication, states the intended diagnostic use of the measured angular difference and does not further structurally limit the claimed device).
Limon fails to disclose a device in that it enables measurement of profiles of a same ellipticity, but with parallel orientation of main axes. Limon and Ragland are related because both disclose optical systems.
Ragland teaches a device in that it enables measurement of profiles ([0053] teaches: fitting of iris in the image using least squares methodology) of a same ellipticity ([0747] teaches: modeling both eyes in same plane with same parameters; therefore considered to measure profiles of same ellipticity; in at least abstract teaches: ellipses compared to a known or presumed diameter of the iris), but with parallel orientation of main axes ([0747] teaches: modeling both eyes in same plane with same parameters; the plane is considered the orientation of the main axes that the ellipses are parallel relative too).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Limon in view of Ragland and provide a device in that it enables measurement of profiles of a same ellipticity, but with parallel orientation of main axes. Doing so would allow for corresponding profile measurements from the two eyes to be obtained and directly compared, thereby facilitating evaluation of their relative geometric relationship.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Limon (US 2016/0120402) in view of Ikeura et al. (US 2019/0268576) in view of Schutte (WO 2011021936), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Borden et al. (US 2016/0157712).
Regarding claim 5, as best understood, the modified Limon discloses the device according to claim 1, including systems for visualizing Maxwell spot centroids and characterizing various asymmetry gaps mentioned above, particularly in people with reading difficulties (Examiner notes that the recitation, for visualizing Maxwell spot centroids and characterizing various asymmetry gaps mentioned above, particularly in people with reading difficulties, states the intended diagnostic use of the device and does not further structurally limit the claimed device).
Limon fails to disclose a device including systems that includes colored LEDs. Limon and Borden are related because both disclose optical evaluation systems.
Borden teaches a device including systems that includes colored LEDs ([0165] teaches: light source comprising colored light emitting diodes).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Limon in view of Borden and provide a device including systems that includes colored LEDs. Doing so would allow for the desired illumination wavelength to be generated in a compact and readily controllable manner, thereby improving the consistency of the illumination output.
Compact Prosecution
Applicant is advised that a potentially persuasive distinction may require positively reciting a specific measurement workflow or structural cooperation among the optical source, display target, user interaction, and processing system, rather than relying on the intended diagnostic use of the resulting measurement. For example, the claims could more particularly define how a displayed geometric target is adjusted relative to a perceived ocular feature, how separate measurements are obtained for the respective eyes, and how the resulting orientation relationship is determined or categorized according to expressly recited criteria.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Dierkes et al. (US 11,676,422) discloses an eye device systems and methods but fails to disclose the correct optical configuration, Limon (US 2019/0307324) discloses measurement of eye based on subjective distance but fails to disclose the correct orientation of the measurement system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 4:30-9:30/12:30-7:30 (CT).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
John Sipes
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights