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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2025, 03/27/2025, 10/30/2024 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on JP2023-187941 dated 11/01/2023.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.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:
Claim 2: “a retraction mechanism that is configured to retract the chin rest portion”
Claim 4: “a vertical-position adjusting mechanism that is configured to adjust a vertical position of the chin rest portion”
Claim 6: “a drive mechanism that is configured to move each of the measurement heads in vertical and horizontal directions”
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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the chin rest device is configured to be detachably attached to an optical table or a pedestal" in lines 2-3 of claim 1. The claim then further specifies that “the optical table of an ophthalmologic apparatus is configured to acquire information about a subject eye, and the pedestal is configured to support a measurement head for acquiring information about the subject eye such that the measurement head is movable in horizontal and vertical directions” in lines 3-6.
The claim initially introduces the optical table and the pedestal using an ‘or’ condition which would suggest a mutual exclusivity between the two structures. However, the claim then introduces the two alternatives separately as “the optical table” and “the pedestal” using definite articles suggesting that both structures are required. The body of the claim then reintroduces the ‘or’ statement and refers back to both antecedents stating “an attachment that is configured to be detachably attached to the optical table or the pedestal” in lines 8-9.
Thus, the optical table and the pedestal are treated as definite separate structures but were introduced as mutually exclusive alternatives. For example, Fig. 9 shows an optical table attachment (see para [0067]), whereas Fig. 11 shows a pedestal attachment (see para [0082]). This creates three possible readings of the scope: the device attaches to the optical table only, the device attaches to the pedestal only, the device is designed to be compatible with either the optical table or the pedestal. For prosecution on the merits, the examiner interprets the scope of the claim to mean that the chin rest is configured to attach to either the optical table or pedestal separately, which is most consistent with the details of the specification.
Claims 2-8 inherit the same deficiencies for their dependance on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umano (US 20200245860 A1).
Regarding claim 1, as best understood, Umano teaches, in Fig. 3: a chin rest device (“face supporter 40”; [0043], Fig. 3, chin rest device 40 includes 46, 42, and 41),
wherein the chin rest device (40) is configured to be attached to an optical table (20) or a pedestal (see Fig. 4 in which 46 is connected to the base 20 via slide part 51 and guide part 52, “one end of the slide part 51 is fixed to the face supporter 40 (for example, the base portion 46), and the other end side is inserted into the hole of the guide part 52. The guide part 52 is fixed to the base 20”; [0066]),
the optical table (“base 20”; [0083], Fig. 3) of an ophthalmologic apparatus (“ophthalmologic apparatus 10”; [0041], Fig. 3) is configured to acquire information about a subject eye (“optometry position P of the subject eye”; [0070], Fig. 3, “the observation image of the subject eye can be captured by the observation optical system”; [0068]), and
the pedestal is configured to support a measurement head (“optometry device 100”; [0042]) for acquiring information about the subject eye such that the measurement head is movable in horizontal and vertical directions (“the XYZ driving portion 30 moves the optometry device 100 in the up and down, left and right, and front and rear direction (three-dimensional direction) with respect to the base 20”; [0042], Figs. 3-4),
wherein the chin rest device (40) comprises:
an attachment (46) that is configured to be attached to the optical table (20) or the pedestal (“one end of the slide part 51 is fixed to the face supporter 40 (for example, the base portion 46), and the other end side is inserted into the hole of the guide part 52. The guide part 52 is fixed to the base 20”; [0066], Fig. 4, base portion 46 in inserted into base 20); and
a chin rest portion (“a chin rest 42”; [0043]) that is configured to extend from the attachment (46) toward a chin of an examinee to support the chin (see Fig. 4 in which the chin rest 42 extends from a top portion of attachment 46).
Further, Umano does not explicitly use the verbiage “detachably attached” to describe the connection between the chin rest device and the optical table. However, Umano suggests that the connection between the chin rest device and the optical table may be detachable in para [0066]: “one end of the slide part 51 is fixed to the face supporter 40 (for example, the base portion 46), and the other end side is inserted into the hole of the guide part 52. The guide part 52 is fixed to the base 20. Therefore, when the slide part 51 is inserted in the guide part 52 and is slid in the Z direction, the position of the face supporter 40 is changed with respect to the base 20.” Slide part 51 is fixed to base portion 46. The mere reference of insertion of the slide part 51 suggests that the part can be inserted and uninserted and thus the part is detachably attached. 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 Umano to provide a device in which the chin rest is detachably attached, for the purpose of providing a detachable chin rest (Umano, [0066])
Regarding claim 4, Umano teaches the chin rest device according to claim 1. Umano further teaches in Fig. 3: comprising a vertical-position adjusting mechanism (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a ball spline or rack-and-pinion as described in the specification at para [0043]) that is configured to adjust a vertical position of the chin rest portion (“The chin rest 42 may be moved in the up and down direction according to the driving by a chin support driving portion 43”; [0043]).
Regarding claim 5, Umano teaches the chin rest device according to claim 1. Umano further teaches in Fig. 3: an ophthalmologic apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising:
a measurement head (“optometry device 100”; [0042]) comprising a measurement optical system that is configured to acquire information about a subject eye (“The optometry device 100 may include, for example, an optical system that measures an eye refraction power, a corneal curvature, an intraocular pressure, or the like of the subject eye”; [0047]);
an optical table (20) that is configured to support the measurement head (100) (“The base 20 supports the entire apparatus. For example, the XYZ driving portion 30 moves the optometry device 100 in the up and down, left and right, and front and rear direction (three-dimensional direction) with respect to the base 20”; [0042]); and
the chin rest device (40) according to claim 1 (see claim 1),
wherein the chin rest device (40) is configured to be attached to the optical table (see Fig. 4 in which 46 is connected to the base 20 via slide part 51 and guide part 52, “one end of the slide part 51 is fixed to the face supporter 40 (for example, the base portion 46), and the other end side is inserted into the hole of the guide part 52. The guide part 52 is fixed to the base 20”; [0066]).
Umano does not explicitly use the verbiage “detachably attached” to describe the connection between the chin rest device and the optical table. However, Umano suggests that the connection between the chin rest device and the optical table may be detachable in para [0066]: “one end of the slide part 51 is fixed to the face supporter 40 (for example, the base portion 46), and the other end side is inserted into the hole of the guide part 52. The guide part 52 is fixed to the base 20. Therefore, when the slide part 51 is inserted in the guide part 52 and is slid in the Z direction, the position of the face supporter 40 is changed with respect to the base 20.” Slide part 51 is fixed to base portion 46. The mere reference of insertion of the slide part 51 suggests that the part can be inserted and uninserted and thus the part is detachably attached.
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 Umano to provide a device in which the chin rest is detachably attached, for the purpose of providing a detachable chin rest (Umano, [0066])
Regarding claim 7, Umano teaches the chin rest device according to claim 5. Umano further teaches in Figs. 2 and 3: the measurement head (100) comprises the measurement optical system (“The optometry device 100 may include, for example, an optical system that measures an eye refraction power, a corneal curvature, an intraocular pressure, or the like of the subject eye”; [0047]) comprising a plurality of examination lenses (“a focusing lens 143 … a relay lens 145 … objective lens 101”; [0056]) that are selectively disposed in front of the subject eye (see Fig. 2 in which the lenses are disposed in front of eye E), and
wherein the ophthalmologic apparatus (Figs. 2 and 3) further comprises a visual-target presenting portion (“fixation target projection unit 150”; [0061]) that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye (“fixation target projection unit 150 includes an optical system for guiding the viewing direction of the eye E”; [0061]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umano (US 20200245860 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Inoue (US 20180252927 A1), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 2, Umano teaches the chin rest device according to claim 1. Umano further teaches: comprising a retraction mechanism (“rotation locking device 63 may be a click mechanism”; [0096], Fig. 8) that is configured to (42) to a predetermined retraction position of the optical table (20) or the pedestal (“The rotator 60 may allow the face supporter 40 to rotate by a predetermined angle. For example, the rotator 60 may include a rotation locking device 63. The rotation locking device 63 may lock the rotation of the rotator 60 when the face supporter 40 rotates by a predetermined angle. In this way, the inspector can rotate the face supporter 40 to an angle suitable for mounting the optical adapter 200”; [0094], Fig. 8, chin rest portion 42 is part of face supporter 40).
Umano does not explicitly disclose that the predetermined position is used to retract the chin rest portion.
However, in a related invention in the field of devices for securing patients’ heads for optical systems, Inoue teaches in Fig. 3: comprising a retraction mechanism (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a pair of rail members as described in the specification at para [0056]) (“due to a mechanism to adjust the position of the chin rest 26 (in particular, the position in the height direction) being provided to the fixing stand 3, the chin rest 26 can be moved to an appropriate position to match the size of the head of the user using the head-mounted display 2”; [0137]) that is configured to retract the chin rest portion (26) to a predetermined retraction position of the optical table or the pedestal (“the position of the chin rest 26 may be lowered and retracted out of the way in advance”; [0127]).
Further, Inoue teaches this configuration such that “the chin rest 26 may be lowered and retracted out of the way in advance so that the chin rest 26 does not get in the way. In this state, the user inserts their own head inside of the body section 5 while aligning to the position of the head-mounted display 2” (Inoue, [0027]).
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 Umano to incorporate the teachings of Inoue to provide a device in which a retraction mechanism is configured to retract the chin rest portion to a predetermined retraction position of the optical table or the pedestal, for the purpose of moving the chin rest so it does not get in the way of the user (Inoue, [0027]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umano (US 20200245860 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kitamura (US 20190380571 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Umano teaches the chin rest device according to claim 5. Umano fails to explicitly teach: the ophthalmologic apparatus comprises: a pair of measurement heads on left and right sides corresponding to left and right subject eyes, each of the measurement heads comprising: the measurement optical system; an image acquiring portion that is configured to acquire an anterior-ocular-segment image on an optical axis of the measurement optical system of the subject eye; and a visual-target presenting portion that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye; a head supporting portion that is provided on the optical table to support the pair of measurement heads by separately suspending the pair of measurement heads; and a drive mechanism that is configured to move each of the measurement heads in vertical and horizontal directions and to rotate each of the measurement heads about a rotational axis parallel to the vertical direction and a rotational axis parallel to the horizontal direction, wherein each of the measurement heads is configured to be suspended from the head supporting portion via the drive mechanism.
However, in a related invention in the field of ophthalmic testing devices Kitamura teaches in Figs. 1-2 and 5: the ophthalmologic apparatus (Fig. 2) comprises: a pair of measurement heads on left and right sides corresponding to left and right subject eyes (“left-eye measurement headset 23L”; [0040], Fig. 2, “right-eye measurement headset 23R”; [0040], Fig. 2), each of the measurement heads (23L, 23R) comprising: the measurement optical system (“left-eye measurement optical system 24L”; [0040] Fig. 2, “right-eye measurement optical system 24R”; [0041], Fig. 2); an image acquiring portion (“cameras 40L, 41L”; [0040], Fig. 2, “cameras 40R, 41R”; [0041], Fig. 2) that is configured to acquire an anterior-ocular-segment image on an optical axis of the measurement optical system of the subject eye (“each of the cameras 40, 41 captures the eyes to be examined E (i.e., EL and ER) from different directions substantially simultaneously so as to acquire two different anterior ocular segment images”; [0042]);
and a visual-target presenting portion (32) that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye (“the target projection system 32 projects a target onto the eye to be examined E”; [0046], Fig. 5);
a head supporting portion (13, 14) that is provided on the optical table (12) to support the pair of measurement heads by separately suspending the pair of measurement heads (“an arm 14 that supports the measurement optical system 24. The driving mechanism 22 is suspended by the arm 14, and the measurement optical system 24 is suspended by the driving mechanism 22”; [0111], Fig. 1); and
a drive mechanism (This element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as an electric motor described in the specification in para [0014]) (“pair of driving mechanisms 22”; [0024], Fig. 1) that is configured to move each of the measurement heads in vertical and horizontal directions and to rotate each of the measurement heads about a rotational axis parallel to the vertical direction and a rotational axis parallel to the horizontal direction (“left-eye driving mechanism 22L includes a left-vertical driver 22a, a left-horizontal driver 22b, and a left-swiveling driver 22c”; [0032], Fig. 2, “right-eye driving mechanism 22R includes a right-vertical driver 22d, a right-horizontal driver 22e, and a right-swiveling driver 22f”; [0034], Fig. 2),
wherein each of the measurement heads is configured to be suspended from the head supporting portion via the drive mechanism (“The arm 14 is attached to the column 13 and supports a measurement headset 23 via a pair of driving mechanisms 22 above the table 12”; [0024], Fig. 1).
Furthermore, Kitamura teaches this configuration such that “an object of the disclosure is, therefore, to provide an ophthalmologic apparatus that allows an examiner to promptly and accurately align/position the measurement optical system by explicitly confirming alignment/positioning of a measurement optical system with respect to an eye to be examined and/or a status of the eye to appropriately determine characteristics of the eye” (Kitamura, [0007]).
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 Umano to incorporate the teachings of Kitamura to provide a device comprising “a pair of measurement heads on left and right sides corresponding to left and right subject eyes, each of the measurement heads comprising: the measurement optical system; an image acquiring portion that is configured to acquire an anterior-ocular-segment image on an optical axis of the measurement optical system of the subject eye; and a visual-target presenting portion that is configured to present a visual target to the subject eye; a head supporting portion that is provided on the optical table to support the pair of measurement heads by separately suspending the pair of measurement heads; and a drive mechanism that is configured to move each of the measurement heads in vertical and horizontal directions and to rotate each of the measurement heads about a rotational axis parallel to the vertical direction and a rotational axis parallel to the horizontal direction, wherein each of the measurement heads is configured to be suspended from the head supporting portion via the drive mechanism,” for the purpose of explicitly confirming alignment/positioning of a measurement optical system with respect to an eye to be examined and/or a status of the eye to appropriately determine characteristics of the eye (Kitamura, [0007]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umano (US 20200245860 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Feather (US 3594072 A).
Regarding claim 3, the closest prior art Umano teaches the chin rest device according to claim 1. Umano fails to teach: the attachment comprises: an upper support member that is disposed on an upper surface of the optical table or the pedestal; a lower support member that is disposed on a lower surface of the optical table or the pedestal; a connecting portion that connects one side of the upper support member and one side of the lower support member; and an attachment space that is defined by the upper and lower support members and the connecting portion, the attachment space being configured to receive the optical table or the pedestal.
However, in a related invention in the field of detachable chin rests for visual instruments Feather teaches in Fig. 2 and the annotated figure below: the attachment (Fig. 2) comprises: an upper support member (upper support 101, see annotated figure 1 below) that is disposed on an upper surface of the optical table (optical table 103, see annotated figure 1 below in which upper support member is disposed on the upper surface of 103) or the pedestal; a lower support member (lower support 102, see annotated figure 1 below) that is disposed on a lower surface of the optical table (optical table 103, see annotated figure 1 below in which lower support member is disposed on the lower surface of 103) or the pedestal;
a connecting portion (connecting portion 104, see annotated figure 1 below) that connects one side of the upper support member (101) and one side of the lower support member (102); and
an attachment space that is defined by the upper (101) and lower support members (102) and the connecting portion (104) (see the space created by 101, 104, and 102 in annotated figure 1 below),
the attachment space being configured to receive the optical table (103) or the pedestal (see the space created by 101, 104, and 102 in annotated figure 1 below). Furthermore, Feather teaches this configuration such that “While the fixture shown in the drawing is intimately associated with and connected to an eye movement monitor 14, it is to be understood that the fixture is wholly independent of the monitor and may be used with a variety of different devices. Moreover, the cylinder 18 may independently be clamped to a table or other support so that it is not in any way connected to the particular device with which the subject is to be examined or tested” (Feather, col 2 lines 55-63).
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 Umano to incorporate the teachings of Feather to provide a device in which “the attachment comprises: an upper support member that is disposed on an upper surface of the optical table or the pedestal; a lower support member that is disposed on a lower surface of the optical table or the pedestal; a connecting portion that connects one side of the upper support member and one side of the lower support member; and an attachment space that is defined by the upper and lower support members and the connecting portion, the attachment space being configured to receive the optical table or the pedestal,” for the purpose of providing a detachable chin rest that could be used with a variety of different devices (Feather, col 2 lines 55-63).
PNG
media_image1.png
561
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1: Annotated Fig. 2 Feather
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Umano (US 20200245860 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Trefethen (US 20220110517 A1), as cited in the IDS and Inoue (US 20180252927 A1), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 8, Umano teaches the chin rest device according to claim 1. Umano teaches in Fig. 3: an ophthalmologic apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising: the measurement head (100) is movable relative to the subject eye in horizontal and vertical directions (“The base 20 supports the entire apparatus. For example, the XYZ driving portion 30 moves the optometry device 100 in the up and down, left and right, and front and rear direction (three-dimensional direction) with respect to the base 20”; [0042]);
Umano fails to explicitly teach: an ophthalmologic apparatus, comprising: a pedestal; a measurement head comprising a measurement optical system that is configured to acquire information about a subject eye, the measurement head being supported on the pedestal such that the measurement head is movable relative to the subject eye in horizontal and vertical directions; and wherein the chin rest device is configured to be detachably attached to the pedestal.
However, in an alternate invention in the field of ophthalmologic measuring devices Trefethen teaches in Fig. 1: an ophthalmologic apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising: a pedestal (“pedestal 3”; [0045]); a measurement head (“objective/subjective examination apparatus 1”; [0045]) comprising a measurement optical system that is configured to acquire information about a subject eye (“The binocular objective/subjective examination apparatus 1 has a simultaneous objective refraction measurement function for both eyes of the subject, and a simultaneous subjective refraction measurement function for both eyes of the subject”; [0046]), the measurement head being (1) supported on the pedestal (“The examination apparatus main body 2 is supported on the pedestal 3”; [0045], see Fig. 1 in which the binocular objective/subjective examination apparatus 1 is part of the examination apparatus main body 2) such that the measurement head (1) is movable relative to the subject eye in horizontal and vertical directions (“a lateral direction of the binocular objective/subjective examination apparatus 1 is indicated as an X direction, an up-down direction of the binocular objective/subjective examination apparatus 1 (i.e., vertical direction) is indicated as a Y direction, and a front-back direction (depth direction) of the binocular objective/subjective examination apparatus 1 is indicated as a Z direction”; [0045].
Furthermore, Trefethen teaches this configuration such that “According to the ophthalmologic apparatus of the present invention, even in a state in which the subjective examination apparatus is suspended on the pedestal, in order to perform a subjective examination on the eyes of the subject, the chin and the mouth of the subject can be prevented from being restrained, while having the positions of the eyes determined stably and securely with respect to the ophthalmologic apparatus in accordance with the size and specific shape of the face of the subject” (Trefethen, [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 Umano to incorporate the teachings of Trefethen to provide a device in comprising a pedestal; a measurement head comprising a measurement optical system that is configured to acquire information about a subject eye, the measurement head being supported on the pedestal such that the measurement head is movable relative to the subject eye in horizontal and vertical directions; and wherein the chin rest device is configured to be detachably attached to the pedestal, for the purpose of preventing restrain of the chin and mouth of the subject while having the positions of the eyes determined stably and securely with respect to the ophthalmologic apparatus (Trefethen, [0022]).
However, Trefethen fails to teach: the chin rest device is configured to be detachably attached to the pedestal.
However, in a related invention in the field of ophthalmic devices containing detachable chin rests, Inoue teaches in Fig. 3: wherein the chin rest device (“the chin rest 26”; [0108]) is configured to be detachably attached to the pedestal (“second fixing holes 29 made as elongated holes is to make the position of the chin rest 26 adjustable”; [0108], The chin rest 26 is fixed to an upper end of the support shaft 37. A bracket 38 is attached to the support shaft 37. A projection 39 and two screw holes are provided to the bracket 38 (para [0116]). The screw holes 40 are formed in order to attach the bracket 38 to the pedestal mount 23. When the bracket is attached to the pedestal mount 23, the screw holes 40 are aligned in position with the second fixing holes 29 of the pedestal mount 23. Moreover, the bracket 38 can be moved in the length direction of the second fixing holes 29 by loosening the screws passing through the second fixing holes 29 (para [0117]).
Furthermore, Inoue teaches this configuration such that “the position of the chin rest 26 may be lowered and retracted out of the way in advance so that the chin rest 26 does not get in the way” (Inoue, [0127]).
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 Umano and Trefethen to incorporate the teachings of Inoue to provide a device wherein the chin rest device is configured to be detachably attached to the pedestal, for the purpose of lowering and retracting the chin rest out of the way so that the chin rest does not get in the way (Inoue, [0127]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 /PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights