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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on June 16, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 12 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on June 16, 2026.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on January 29, 2025 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
In review of a claimed invention for eligibility under USC 101, the USPTO has provided the 2019 PEG guidance. Under such guidance, claim 1 is not eligible under USC 101 for the following reasons:
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine manufacture, or composition of matter: Yes. The claim recites “A method for measuring a visual field of a subject…”.
Pre-Step 2: Can the analysis be streamlined? When view as a whole, the eligibility of the claim is self-evident: No. Eligibility is not self-evident.
Step 2A. Prong 1: Does the claim recite an Abstract Idea, Law of Nature, or Natural Phenomenon: Yes, the claim recites an Abstract Idea. Specifically, the claim recites a combination of mental activities and method of organizing human activities.
As claimed, claim 1 recites two steps.
The first step is placing a target and symbol. The placement of such target/symbol is, as disclosed, at least a first human (e.g. measurer) places visual signs (e.g. circles, squares, etc.) at locations and distance(s) from a second human (subject).
The second step is the first human (measurer) queries (asks) the second human (subject) whether they can see the signs/symbols. Based on the second human’s response, the first human determines whether the sign/symbol was seen.
Step 2A. Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No.
There are no additional elements. The claim is directed to a first human(s) asking as second human if they can see various objects (e.g. signs with circle, triangle, etc.) and determining if the object(s) was/were seen.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No. There are no additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-11 do not resolve the issues. Claims 2-11 are directed to the various types of data to be considered, the colors of the signs, or locations of the signs.
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 3 and 9 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.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “the symbol has a size that the subject can visually recognize when the symbol is in the visual field of the subject” which is a relative term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the ability to recognize the symbol is not only a function of the size, but of the distance as well. For example, a symbol with a height and width of 30x30cm could be visually recognized at 1 meter, but not necessarily at 1 kilometer and yet the actual size of 30cm x 30cm isn’t any different. The metes and bounds are unclear since what range of sizes such symbol has is entirely arbitrary and based upon the relative distance from the subject. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that so long as the art teaches a symbol, such symbol is always of a size to be seen.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “one or more traffic participants” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Traffic of what? Participants of what? For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the claim such that the features are directed to symbols around the target object.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-7, 9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Koetting (US 3,025,755).
As to claim 1, Koetting teaches a method for measuring a visual field of a subject (Koetting Figs. 1, 2; col. 1:9-15), the method comprising
arranging a target object at a position at a measurement target distance from the subject (Koetting Fig. 1 - 18; col. 48-50) and arranging a symbol at a plurality of positions around the target object (Koetting Fig. 2 - 21; col. 2:55-60);
determining the visual field of the subject based on a position of the plurality of positions at which the subject can visually recognize the symbol while looking at the target object (Koetting col. 2:55-65; col. 4:35-60).
PNG
media_image1.png
700
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 2, Koetting teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Koetting teaches determining the visual field of the subject includes determining, for each of a plurality of measurement target distances, the visual field of the subject when the target object is arranged at a position at an individual measurement target distance from the subject (Koetting Fig. 2 - 21; col. 2:55-65).
As to claim 3, Koetting teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Koetting teaches the symbol has a size that the subject can visually recognize when the symbol is in the visual field of the subject (Koetting Fig. 2 - 21).
As to claim 4, Koetting teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Koetting teaches the plurality of positions includes a position having a height from a horizontal plane different from a height of the target object (Koetting Fig. 1 - 18; Fig. 2 - 21; Fig. 3 - 18, 21).
As to claim 5, Koetting teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Koetting teaches determining the visual field of the subject includes, for each of a plurality of directions with respect to a trunk of the subject, determining the visual field of the subject when the target object is arranged in an individual direction with respect to the trunk of the subject and a face of the subject is directed in the individual direction (Koetting Fig. 1 - 13, 40; col. 4:15-40).
As to claim 6, Koetting teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Koetting teaches determining the visual field of the subject includes, for each of a plurality of directions with respect to a face of the subject, determining the visual field of the subject when the target object is arranged in an individual direction with respect to the face of the subject and a line of sight of the subject is directed in the individual direction (Koetting Fig. 1 - 13, 18, 40; Fig. 2 - 13, 21; Fig. 3 - 18, 21; col. 4:15-40).
As to claim 7, Koetting teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Koetting teaches the visual field of the subject includes determining, for each of a plurality of light environments, the visual field of the subject in an individual light environment (Koetting Fig. 1 - 18, 19; Fig. 2 - 21; Fig. 3 - 21, 19, 18; Fig. 5 - 26, 25a-k; col. 3:1-31; col. 4:35-60 - as shown and discussed, the device includes various lighting environments including the blind spot illumination (19) and the various test lights (21) in zones (25a-k)).
As to claim 9 (as understood), Koetting teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Koetting teaches one or more traffic participants around the target object (Koetting Fig. 2 - 21), and wherein determining the visual field of the subject includes determining, for each of a plurality of indices indicating of the number of the one or more traffic participants (Koetting Fig. 2 - 21; Fig. 3 - 21 ,25a-k; col. 3:1-15; col. 4:35-60), the visual field of the subject when traffic participants of an individual index are arranged (Koetting Fig. 2 - 21; Fig. 3 - 21 ,25a-k; col. 3:1-15; col. 4:35-60).
As to claim 11, Koetting teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Koetting teaches determining the visual field of the subject includes determining the visual field of the subject while the subject is on a moving body (Koetting Fig. 1 - 10, 40, 41; col. 4:15-20 - such device is necessarily a moving body as being on planet earth; additionally, the various components (41, 33) are also movable).
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Cameron (US 1,780,291).
As to claim 1, Cameron teaches a method for measuring a visual field of a subject (Cameron Figs. 1-8), the method comprising
arranging a target object at a position at a measurement target distance from the subject (Cameron Fig. 1 - 24; page 2:lines 65-70) and arranging a symbol at a plurality of positions around the target object (Cameron Fig. 2 - 49, 40, 35; Fig. 7 - 35; page 3:lines 22-45; page 3:lines 84-101);
determining the visual field of the subject based on a position of the plurality of positions at which the subject can visually recognize the symbol while looking at the target object (Cameron Fig. 3; page 2:lines 55-75; page 3:84-101).
As to claim 2, Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches determining the visual field of the subject includes determining, for each of a plurality of measurement target distances, the visual field of the subject when the target object is arranged at a position at an individual measurement target distance from the subject (Cameron Fig. 1 - 34, 10; Fig. 3; page 3:lines 84-95).
As to claim 3, Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches the symbol has a size that the subject can visually recognize when the symbol is in the visual field of the subject (Cameron Fig. 7 - 35; page 3:lines 24-45; page 3:lines 84-95).
As to claim 4, Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches the plurality of positions includes a position having a height from a horizontal plane different from a height of the target object (Cameron Figs. 1, 3; page 3:lines 84-95).
As to claim 5, Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches determining the visual field of the subject includes, for each of a plurality of directions with respect to a trunk of the subject, determining the visual field of the subject when the target object is arranged in an individual direction with respect to the trunk of the subject and a face of the subject is directed in the individual direction (Cameron Figs. 1-3 - 24, 34; page 1:lines 24-40; page 3:lines 3-25).
As to claim 6, Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches determining the visual field of the subject includes, for each of a plurality of directions with respect to a face of the subject, determining the visual field of the subject when the target object is arranged in an individual direction with respect to the face of the subject and a line of sight of the subject is directed in the individual direction (Cameron Figs. 1-3 - 24, 34; page 1:lines 24-40; page 3:lines 3-25).
As to claim 7, Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches the visual field of the subject includes determining, for each of a plurality of light environments, the visual field of the subject in an individual light environment (Cameron page 3:lines 18-25 - testing can take place in either darkened or undarkened room).
As to claim 8, Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches the visual field of the subject includes determining, for each of a plurality of colors, the visual field of the subject when the symbol is represented in an individual color (Cameron Fig. 8 - 50; page 8: lines 29-33; page 3:lines 67-75).
As to claim 9 (as understood), Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches one or more traffic participants around the target object (Cameron Fig. 1; page 3: lines 84-101 - light image/pattern (traffic participant) is projected at various locations around target object (24)), and wherein determining the visual field of the subject includes determining, for each of a plurality of indices indicating of the number of the one or more traffic participants (Cameron Fig. 1; page 1:lines 90-95; page 3: lines 105-115; page 3: lines 84-101), the visual field of the subject when traffic participants of an individual index are arranged (Cameron Fig. 1; page 1:lines 90-95; page 3: lines 105-115; page 3: lines 84-101).
As to claim 10, Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches recording the determined visual field in a database in association with value of a parameter used in measurement (Cameron Fig. 6; page 1:lines 90-95; page 3: lines 105-115 - writing/recording on a card is such a database), the parameter includes at least one of: a distance from the subject to the target object;
a color of the symbol; a direction of a face of the subject with respect to a trunk during the measurement; a direction of a line of sight with respect to the face of the subject during the measurement; a light environment in which the measurement has been performed; and an index indicating the number of traffic participants arranged around the target object (Cameron Fig. 6; page 1:lines 90-95; page 3: lines 105-115).
As to claim 11, Cameron teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Cameron further teaches the visual field of the subject includes determining the visual field of the subject while the subject is on a moving body (Cameron Fig. 2 - 34; page 1:34-40 - movable chin rest; Also, the device is on planet earth which is a moving body).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patent Documents - the following patent documents are cited as additional references which teach the claimed invention and/or various features of the disclosure, including visual field testing during operation of a car, visual field testing in various lighting conditions; storing visual field information in a database to associate vehicle operation:
Skalicky (US 12,290,315; 2022/0338728); Zinser et al. (US 11,931,103; 2021/0282636); Mochizuki et al. (US 10,117,577; 2016/0120403) Shigemura (US 9,390,337; 2015/0363657); Todd (US 7,748,846; 2008/0043201); Yeh et al. (US 8,087,780; 2008/0024726); Pritikin (US 2,576,358); Ellis (US 2,451,932); Sorenson et al. (US 2,022,160); Enders (DE 10-2012-221647); Danno et al. (JP 2011-206072).
Non-Patent Documents - the following documents are cited as additional examples teaching the claimed invention and/or various features of the disclosure, including visual field testing during operation of a car, visual field testing in various lighting conditions; storing visual field information in a database to associate vehicle operation:
Anderson et al. (Piloting A New Method For Estimating Effects Of Visual Field Loss In A Panoramic Naturalistic Environment)1.
Seya et al. (Useful field of view in simulated driving: Reaction times and eye movements of drivers)2;
Shirpour et al. (Traffic Object Detection and Recognition Based on the Attentional Visual Field of Drivers)3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 28, 2026
1 David Anderson, Deepta Abhay Ghate, Sachin Kedar, Matthew Rizzo; Piloting A New Method For Estimating Effects Of Visual Field Loss In A Panoramic Naturalistic Environment. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2017;58(8):2847
2 Seya Y, Nakayasu H, Yagi T. Useful field of view in simulated driving: Reaction times and eye movements of drivers. Iperception. 2013 Jun 3;4(4):285-98. doi: 10.1068/i0512. PMID: 24349688; PMCID: PMC3859571
3 M. Shirpour, N. Khairdoost, M. A. Bauer and S. S. Beauchemin, "Traffic Object Detection and Recognition Based on the Attentional Visual Field of Drivers," in IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Vehicles, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 594-604, Jan. 2023, doi: 10.1109/TIV.2021.3133849.
Prosecution Insights