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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 12/16/2024 and 2/9/2026 have been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
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:
Ocular characteristic acquiring unit (means to acquire an ocular characteristic) performing the function of acquiring an ocular characteristic in claims 1 and 3.
Relatively-moving unit (means of relatively moving) performing the function of relatively moving the ocular characteristic acquiring unit in claims 1 and 3.
Detecting unit (means of detecting) performing the function of detecting a relative position of the subject eye in claims 1 and 3.
Provisional alignment controlling unit (means of controlling provisional alignment) performing the function of provisional alignment in claim 1.
Re-detecting unit (means of re-detecting) performing the function of repeatedly detecting the relative position in claims 1.
Determining unit (means of determining) performing the function of determining position in claims 1.
Operation mode selecting unit (means of selecting operation modes) performing the function of selecting an operation mode in claims 1.
Alignment controlling unit (means for alignment control) performing the function of controlling alignment in claims 1.
Measurement controlling unit (means for controlling measurement) performing the function of measuring via the ocular characteristic acquiring unit in claim 1.
Repetition controlling unit (means for repetition control) performing the function of repetition control in claims 2 and 3.
First determining unit (means for first determining) performing the function of determining position in claim 3.
Second determining unit (means for second determining) performing the function of determining a result in claim 3.
Normal-mode controlling unit (means for normal-mode control) performing the function of normal mode control in claim 3.
Quick-mode controlling unit (means for quick-mode control) performing the function of quick mode control in claim 3.
A detecting step of detecting in claims 7 and 8.
Provisional alignment step of relatively moving in claim 7.
Re-detecting step of repeatedly performing the detecting step in claim 7.
Determining step of determining in claim 7.
Operation mode selecting step of selecting either one of a normal mode and a quick mode in claim 7.
Alignment step of relatively moving in claims 7 and 8.
Ocular characteristic acquiring step of causing acquisition in claim 7.
First determining step of determining in claim 8.
Second determining step of determining in claim 8.
Repeating step of repeatedly performing the detecting step in claim 8.
Normal-mode controlling step causing an acquisition step in the normal mode in claim 8.
Quick-mode controlling step of causing an acquisition step in the quick mode in claim 8.
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 1-8 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 claims 1, 3, 7-8, claims state the limitation “simpler” when comparing the quick mode to the normal mode in line 18 of claim 1, line 16 of claim 3, line 15 of claim 7, and line 11 of claim 8. This limitation is unclear as what constitutes “simpler” when comparing operation modes is not specified in the claims. How is the quick mode “simpler” than the normal mode? Does this mean there fewer steps to execute? Is this mode configured to run faster than the normal mode? According to instant specification paragraph 0046, the quick mode is a mode in which, for example, accuracy is sacrificed for a higher speed resulting in a shorter period of time for measuring. Due to this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this limitation to mean that “simpler” refers to a faster measuring mode.
Regarding claim 4, claim states the limitation “wherein the second determining unit counts the number of times of the alignment by the alignment controlling unit” in the first two lines of the claim. This limitation is unclear as what exactly is being counted in terms of alignment is not specified. Is this the amount of movements are needed for proper alignment, the number of times proper alignment is reached, the amount of time it takes for alignment, or some other metric? Due to this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will assume this is the number of movements needed for proper alignment.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “re-detecting unit” of claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Regarding “re-detecting unit”, the instant specification states that the re-detecting unit causes the relative position detecting unit to repeatedly perform the relative position detection processing so that the relative position of the subject eye relative to the measurement head is continually detected. Based on the description, it is unclear what the re-detecting unit is – the metes and bounds are unclear since what material or structure is performing the function of re-detecting is unclear; as based on the instant Figure 2, this appears to be a proverbial black box. For purposes of compact prosecution, examiner will interpret this as any structure, software, etc. which may perform the function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Also, claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-8 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The closest prior art, Higuchi US 20130265547 (hereinafter “Higuchi”) and Bian et. al US 20190365221 (hereinafter “Bian”) do not provide the details of corresponding structure/material/acts required by the claims, in particular that of having an operation mode selecting unit to select between a normal mode and a quick mode for collecting subject eye data, using a shift flag to determine selection, and having respective controlling units based on each mode.
Regarding claim 1, as stated above, the closest prior art Higuchi does not disclose nor teach “an operation mode selecting unit configured to select either one of a normal mode and a quick mode that is simpler than the normal mode as an operation mode for alignment of the ocular characteristic acquiring unit relative to the subject eye and acquisition of the ocular characteristic by the ocular characteristic acquiring unit based on a determination result by the determining unit;
an alignment controlling unit configured to drive the relatively-moving unit based on the detection result by the detecting unit after completion of the provisional alignment and perform the alignment in the operation mode selected by the operation mode selecting unit; and
a measurement controlling unit configured to cause acquisition of the ocular characteristic to be performed by the ocular characteristic acquiring unit in the operation mode selected by the operation mode selecting unit after completion of the alignment,
wherein the operation mode selecting unit performs first selection processing that selects the normal mode as the operation mode for both of the alignment and the acquisition of the ocular characteristic when the determining unit determines that the ocular characteristic acquiring unit has been brought closer to the subject eye by a distance greater than or equal to the threshold value and selects the quick mode as the operation mode for at least one of the alignment and the acquisition of the ocular characteristic when the determining unit determines that the ocular characteristic acquiring unit has not been brought closer to the subject eye by a distance greater than or equal to the threshold value” in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. In particular, Higuchi does not disclose two different operation modes through which alignment may be conducted, where one may be faster than the other. Bian teaches having various operation modes for imaging, but these are regarding the imaging process versus the alignment and imaging process as selected based on assessment as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 3, similarly to claim 1 and as discussed above, Higuchi does not disclose nor teach “a second determining unit configured to, when the first determining unit determines a negative result, determine whether or not a shift flag is satisfied for shifting the operation mode for at least one of alignment of the ocular characteristic acquiring unit relative to the subject eye by the relatively-moving unit and acquisition of the ocular characteristic by the ocular characteristic acquiring unit from a normal mode to a quick mode that is simpler than the normal mode;
an alignment controlling unit configured to, when the second determining unit determines a negative result, drive the relatively-moving unit and perform the alignment in the normal mode based on the detection result by the detecting unit;
a repetition controlling unit configured to cause the detecting unit, the first determining unit, the second determining unit, and the alignment controlling unit to repeatedly operate until the first determining unit determines that the position is within the allowable range or until the second determining unit determines that the shift flag is satisfied;
a normal-mode controlling unit configured to, when the first determining unit determines that the position is within the allowable range, cause the ocular characteristic acquiring unit to perform acquisition of the ocular characteristic in the normal mode; and
a quick-mode controlling unit configured to, when the second determining unit determines that the shift flag is satisfied, cause at least one of the alignment by the alignment controlling unit and the acquisition of the ocular characteristic by the ocular characteristic acquiring unit to be performed in the quick mode” in combination with the rest of the limitations of claim 3. Bian teaches having various operation modes for imaging, but these are regarding the imaging process versus the alignment and imaging process as selected based on assessment as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 7, similarly to claim 1 and as discussed above, Higuchi does not disclose nor teach “an operation mode selecting step of selecting either one of a normal mode and a quick mode that is simpler than the normal mode as an operation mode for alignment of the ocular characteristic acquiring unit relative to the subject eye and acquisition of the ocular characteristic by the ocular characteristic acquiring unit based on a determination result by the determining step;
an alignment step of relatively moving the ocular characteristic acquiring unit relative to the subject eye based on the detection result by the detecting step after completion of the provisional alignment and performing the alignment in the operation mode selected by the operation mode selecting step; and
an ocular characteristic acquiring step of causing acquisition of the ocular characteristic to be performed by the ocular characteristic acquiring unit in the operation mode selected by the operation mode selecting step after completion of the alignment,
wherein the operation mode selecting step performs first selection processing that selects the normal mode as the operation mode for both of the alignment and the acquisition of the ocular characteristic when the determining step determines that the ocular characteristic acquiring unit has been brought closer to the subject eye by a distance greater than or equal to the threshold value and selects the quick mode as the operation mode for at least one of the alignment and the acquisition of the ocular characteristic when the determining step determines that the ocular characteristic acquiring unit has not been brought closer to the subject eye by a distance greater than or equal to the threshold value” in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. Bian teaches having various operation modes for imaging, but these are regarding the imaging process versus the alignment and imaging process as selected based on assessment as required by the claim.
Regarding claim 8, similarly to claim 1 and as discussed above, Higuchi does not disclose nor teach “a second determining step of, when the first determining step determines a negative result, determining whether a shift flag is satisfied for shifting the operation mode for at least one of alignment of the ocular characteristic acquiring unit relative to the subject eye and acquisition of the ocular characteristic by the ocular characteristic acquiring unit from a normal mode to a quick mode that is simpler than the normal mode;
an alignment step of relatively moving the ocular characteristic acquiring unit relative to the subject eye based on a detection result by the detecting step when the second determining step determines a negative result and performing the alignment in the normal mode; and
a repeating step of repeatedly performing the detecting step, the first determining step, the second determining step, and the alignment step until the first determining step determines that the position is within the allowable range or until the second determining step determines that the shift flag is satisfied;
a normal-mode controlling step of, when the first determining step determines that the position is within the allowable range, causing the ocular characteristic acquiring unit to perform acquisition of the ocular characteristic in the normal mode; and
a quick-mode controlling step of, when the second determining step determines that the shift flag is satisfied, causing at least one of the alignment and the acquisition of the ocular characteristic by the ocular characteristic acquiring unit to be performed in the quick mode” in combination with the rest of the limitations of the claim. Bian teaches having various operation modes for imaging, but these are regarding the imaging process versus the alignment and imaging process as selected based on assessment as required by the claim.
Also, claims 2 and 4-6 would be allowable for the same reasons due to their dependency.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Higuchi US 9,055,903, patent of Higuchi US 20130265547;
Naba et. al US 20120249769, teaches switching between multiple imaging operation modes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights