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 May 17, 2025 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
“a calculation part configured to calculate refractive power of the eye to be examined based on the image of the measurement light detected by the image detector” in claim 1; and
“the measurement light controller is configured to measure the vision of the eye to be examined at a first height by turning on first and second light-emitting elements of the first row and first and second light-emitting elements of the second row, then measure the vision of the eye to be examined at a second height by turning on second and third light-emitting elements of the first row and second and third light-emitting elements of the second row, and then measure the vision of the eye to be examined at a third height by turning on third and fourth light-emitting elements of the first row and third and fourth light-emitting elements of the second row” in claim 7.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3 “wherein light emission of the light-emitting elements is performed in sequence in a manner that a position of the measurement light being irradiated to the eye to be examined is moved away from or closer to a center of the eye to be examined” particularly “moved away from or closer to” raises clarity issues. It is unclear if the light-emitting elements are being moved back and forth along the optical axis or if the light-emitting elements are being sequentially illuminated orthogonally to the optical axis, e.g. spreading out from the center or collapsing into the center (assumed). The examiner suggests and for purposes of examination will use “wherein light emission of the light-emitting elements is performed in sequence in a manner that a position of the measurement light being irradiated to the eye to be examined is further from or closer to the image detector
Regarding claim 1 “a calculation part configured to calculate refractive power of the eye to be examined based on the image of the measurement light detected by the image detector” has been interpreted under 112(f). The written description lacks any description, explanation or example what a “calculation part” could be. The box labeled 30 in figure 1 is a “black box” and sheds no light on the topic. Furthermore, the specification has no disclosure for an algorithm or series of steps “to calculate refractive power of the eye to be examined based on the image of the measurement light detected by the image detector.” Disclosing the algorithm for a specialized function is the quid pro quo for the ability to claim an element in with functional terms, see, e.g., B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. Abbott Labs., 124 F.3d 1419, 1424, 43 USPQ2d 1896, 1900 (Fed. Cir. 1997), see MPEP 2181 and 2182. Since the examiner does not know what structure is calculating (e.g. a computer processor or a person with pen and paper), and cannot determine the process to calculate (e.g. using comparison charts or preforming a wavefront calculation) the metes and bounds of the claims are vague and indefinite, see MPEP 2181II.C & III. For purposes of examination the examiner will assume this is an inherent structure and function for a photorefraction vision screening device.
Claims 2-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite, since they depend on claim 1 and therefore have the same deficiencies.
Regarding claim 7 “the measurement light controller is configured to measure the vision of the eye …” with illumination at three different positions has been interpreted under 112(f). Insofar as it is understood the measurement light controller controls which illuminator is on/off (see paragraph [0014]). It is unclear how a controller that controls an illumination array of light sources is measuring vision. It is unclear if the calculation part and/or the detector is involved. Further, similar to above, there is no disclosure for an algorithm or series of steps to “measure vision.” Given these lacks, the metes and bounds of the claims are vague and indefinite. For purposes of examination the examiner will assume measuring vision is an inherent function for a photorefraction vision screening device and that it is functionally equivalent whether the vision measurement is done by the measurement light controller or some other element(s) in a photorefraction vision screening device. For clarity, measuring vision will be interpreted as inherent, however, measuring under different lighting conditions will not be interpreted as inherent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 & 2) as being anticipated by Hunter et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0233078.
Regarding claim 1 Hunter discloses a photorefraction vision screening device (title e.g. figure 3A-C vision screening device 300) comprising: a measurement light irradiator configured to irradiate measurement light to an eye to be examined (e.g. array 308); a measurement light controller configured (e.g. image capture control component 134) to control light-emitting elements of the measurement light irradiator (inter alia paragraph [0067] “individual LEDs of the array 308 may be activated in a sequence (e.g., by the image capture control component 134”); an image detector (e.g. sensor(s) 310) configured to detect an image formed on a retina of the eye to be examined by the measurement light having been irradiated from the light-emitting elements of the measurement light irradiator and having passed through a pupil of the eye to be examined (inter alia paragraph [0075] discusses images from “light reflected back from the retina of the eyes”); and a calculation part configured to calculate refractive power of the eye to be examined based on the image of the measurement light detected by the image detector (inter alia paragraph [0029] “process the image(s) and/or video data to determine change(s) in the refractive error and/or gaze angle(s) of the eye(s)”), wherein two or more measurement light sources are arranged radially (e.g. figure 3B rows 316, 318 & 320) with the image detector (e.g. 310) as a center in the measurement light irradiator (e.g. see figures 3A & 3C), and each of the measurement light sources includes three or more light-emitting elements sequentially arranged in one direction (e.g. see figure 3B), and wherein the measurement light controller is configured to select two or more of the light-emitting elements sequentially arranged in each of the measurement light sources and turn on the selected ones simultaneously, and a number of light-emitting elements that are simultaneously turned on is less than a total number of light-emitting elements (inherent given at least paragraph [0067] “individual LEDs of the array 308 may be activated in a sequence …”).
Regarding claim 2 Hunter discloses the photorefraction vision screening device of claim 1, as set forth above. Hunter further discloses wherein the measurement light controller is configured to cause consecutively positioned two or more light-emitting elements among the sequentially arranged light-emitting elements to emit light simultaneously (inter alia paragraph [0067] “LEDs 322 and 324 may also be activated substantially simultaneously”).
Regarding claim 3 Hunter discloses the photorefraction vision screening device of claim 2, as set forth above. Hunter further discloses wherein light emission of the light-emitting elements is performed in sequence in a manner that a position of the measurement light being irradiated to the eye to be examined is further from or closer to the image detector (inter alia paragraph [0067] “LED 322 may be activated first, followed by the LED 324, adjacent to the LED 322, and so on”).
Regarding claim 4 Hunter discloses the photorefraction vision screening device of claim 1, as set forth above. Hunter further discloses wherein the light-emitting elements are arranged radially at equal intervals from the image detector positioned at a center (e.g. see figure 3B).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hunter et al. US Patent Application Publication 2023/0233078 in view of Walsh et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0110677.
Regarding claim 5 Hunter discloses the photorefraction vision screening device of claim 1, as set forth above. Hunter further discloses wherein each of the measurement light sources includes first-row light-emitting elements arranged sequentially in one direction (e.g. see figure 3B).
Hunter does not disclose a second-row light-emitting elements arranged side by side adjacent to the first-row light-emitting elements.
Walsh teaches a similar photorefraction vision screening device (title e.g. figures 1A & 2) comprising: a light irradiator (e.g. dynamic illuminator 105 or 205) controlled by a controller to illuminate the eye (e.g. controller 115 or 215 inter alia abstract “controller is coupled to the plurality of LEs … and the controller implements logic that when executed by the controller causes the apparatus to perform operations … include illuminating the eye”), a retinal image detector (e.g. retinal camera 110 or 210 inter alia paragraph [0002] “disclosure relates generally to imaging technologies, and in particular, relates to retinal imaging”), where the light sources are arranged radially (e.g. see figure 1C lines 2-9), and each of the measurement light sources includes three or more light-emitting elements sequentially arranged in one direction (e.g. see figure 1C), the light emitting elements are illuminated at different times (inter alia paragraph [0019] “can control the sequential firing of the IR light emitters … and control the firing of the visible light emitters positioned around the image path”), and light sources includes first-row light-emitting elements arranged sequentially in one direction (e.g. figure 1C IR-LED 153); and further teaches a second-row light-emitting elements (e.g. V-LED 151) arranged side by side adjacent to the first-row light-emitting elements (e.g. see figure 1C) for the purpose of determining which visible LEDs to enable/disable to capture visible images that mostly do not contain a reflection (inter alia paragraph [0025]). Therefore, it would be obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the photorefraction vision screening device as disclosed by Hunter to have a second-row light-emitting elements arranged side by side adjacent to the first-row light-emitting elements as taught by Walsh for the purpose of determining which visible LEDs to enable/disable to capture visible images that mostly do not contain a reflection.
Regarding claim 6 the combination of Hunter as modified by Walsh discloses the photorefraction vision screening device of claim 5, as set forth above. Hunter further discloses wherein six measurement light sources are arranged radially at equal angular intervals in the measurement light irradiator (e.g. see figure 3B).
Regarding claim 7 the combination of Hunter as modified by Walsh discloses the photorefraction vision screening device of claim 6, as set forth above. Hunter further discloses wherein the measurement light controller is configured to measure the vision of the eye to be examined at a first height by turning on first and second light-emitting elements of the first row and first and second light-emitting elements of the second row, then measure the vision of the eye to be examined at a second height by turning on second and third light-emitting elements of the first row and second and third light-emitting elements of the second row, and then measure the vision of the eye to be examined at a third height by turning on third and fourth light-emitting elements of the first row and third and fourth light-emitting elements of the second row (implicit given sequential illumination is described in inter alia paragraph [0067] as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 above and paragraph [0029] “process the image(s) and/or video data to determine change(s) in the refractive error and/or gaze angle(s) of the eye(s)”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mowrey et al. US Patent Application Publication 2012/0212598; in regards to a similar phototrefractor using an array of LEDs to illuminate a retina to determine refractive error (see paragraph [0003] and figures 2A-B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 July 1, 2026
Prosecution Insights