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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on November 26, 22025 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Specification
The amendment filed November 26, 2025 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows:
Para. [0138] “via a two-way communication 482, where the two-way communication 482 is, for example, a wireless communication”.
Para. [0148] “via a two-way communication 482”…”may communicate wirelessly with an additional controller”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings were received on November 26, 2025. These drawings are not accepted for including new matter. Figure 39 introduces two-way wireless communication (482) which is not supported by the originally filed specification.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “haptic indicator” (claims 1, 27); “imaging device in communication with the controller…configured for infrared meibography, laser confocal meibography…” (claim 9) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 15-26 have the status identifier of “withdrawn”, however the claims contain no text and should be identified as “canceled”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
USC 112(f) Issues
Applicant’s amendment to “imaging device” has not introduced any structure to the 112(f) invocation. Such language again being a nonce term “device” and function “imaging”. In other words, imaging device is synonymous with means for imaging. No structure has been added. Claim 9 continues to invoke USC 112(f).
USC 112(a) Issues
Regarding the lack of computer algorithm, Applicant’s remarks filed November 26, 2025 have not resolved the issue. While Applicant refers to paras. [0145]-[0146], [0148], [0168]-[0173], such paragraphs do not detail any, or sufficient, algorithm for the server to perform the function “determine a condition of the eye and/or eyelid including physiological or disease markers based on the image and a comparison with one or more selected images obtained previous to the image as treatment progresses”.
Regarding the USC 112(a) rejection of claim 9 for introducing new matter, Applicant’s specification does not provide support for an imaging device, in communication with the imager, performing the functions of infrared meibography, laser confocal meibography, etc. The apparent imager Applicant’s remarks allude to is (406, 408, 410, 420) however none are disclosed as performing any of these functions.
USC 112(b) Issues
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 resolves the issue regarding the previously obtained image issue.
Applicant’s amendments have not resolved the USC 112(b) issue with claim 9 since claim 9 continues to invoke USC 112(f)).
Applicant’s remarks have not resolved the USC 112(b) issues regarding “sized to conform over meibomian glands”. As already stated by Examiner1, limitations from the specification are not permitted to be imported into claims. Thus, contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the length and widths from para. [0089], [0090] are not permitted to be incorporated into the specification. Additionally, para. [0090] states “the treatment strip 10, 12 may be sized to have a length of, e.g. 25mm to 30mm” which would itself render the claim indefinite for exemplary language (MPEP 2173.05(d)). If Applicant desires the particular sizing and shape disclosed, Applicant should amend the claim accordingly.
USC 103 Issue
Regarding Applicant’s amendment whereby the treatment system includes a visual, auditory, or haptic indicator for providing an alert, Examiner is not persuaded. As an initial point, the claim doesn’t specify whether such features are part of the controller, external device, or other. Regardless of Applicant’s intended meaning, Bawadi’s external device (as interpreted) is a smartphone, tablet, laptop, etc.. Such arbitrarily designated and defined alerts are present on a smartphone, tablet, laptop.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to whether the controller is configured to receive the image of the eye and/or eyelid from the external device, Examiner disagrees. Contrary to Applicant’s assertion, the claim does not recite “the controller receives an image…”. The controller (340) is disclosed as including a processor and being coupled to the smartphone (342) via a USB port (para. [0127]). Thus, the controller (340) is a computer with a data port. Images are merely data and thus the controller (340) is necessarily “configured to” receive images of eye, eyelid, or images of whatever by virtue of being a processor with data port (USB). Furthermore, para. [0135] corroborates this by stating controller (340) can include an integrated camera, and thus necessarily includes software for image taking and storage.
Additionally, the controller (340) includes a display to display various images (para. [0137]) which are received from the smartphone (342), or other external devices (servers, etc.). To put another way, controller (340) is indeed “configured to” receive eye images (or any images) to be displayed on the display from the external device (342).
Regarding Applicant’s remarks that “[i]f the controller has its own camera, the need to receive an image from an external device is obviated”, such remarks are not fully understood. Smartphones are ubiquitous examples of such devices which both take images (e.g. internal camera) and also receive images (e.g. from other phones, the internet, etc.). Examiner is unsure how the function of taking images somehow obviates any need for receiving images. Such statement appears to contradict Applicant’s disclosure.
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:
a) an imaging device…configured for infrared meibography, laser confocal meibography …in claim 9.
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 9, 27 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 9, the claim limitation “an imaging device…configured for infrared meibography, laser confocal meibography, …” 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.
Applicant has not disclosed any structure for performing the function(s) of infrared meibography, laser confocal meibography, contact meibography, non-contact meibography, optical coherence tomographic meibography, or infrared light.
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.
As to claim 27, the claim recites “the one or more heating strips are sized to conform over meibomian glands” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “sized to conform” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, such size is entirely subjective. Is this over a single gland? Some region of the face? Over the entire face? Additionally “conform” is a variable metric. Conform by how much? Exactly the same? Within some percentage? Applicant’s specification provides some objective measurement sizing/shaping2, however Examiner is not permitted to incorporate limitations from the specification into the claims (MPEP 2111.01.II). Examiner suggests clarifying the claim with the sizes as disclosed.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “a remote server which is programmed for determining a condition of the eye and/or eyelid including a physiological or disease marker based on the image and a comparison with one or more selected images obtained previous to the image” which is a computer implemented function without the necessary/sufficient algorithm (MPEP 2161.01.I).
Applicant’s specification does not appear to contain any algorithm to compare the images and determine a condition of the eye/eyelid. As per MPEP 2161.01.I - When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing…If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made).
Claims 2-6, 8-14 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 4, the claim recites “haptic indicator is positioned along the housing” which appears to be prohibited new matter. Examiner requests Applicant specifically point out where in the originally filed specification support for such claimed subject matter is found.
As to claim 9, the claim recites “an imaging device in communication with the controller, wherein the instrument is configured for infrared meibography, laser confocal meibography, contact meibography, non-contact meibography, optical coherence tomographic meibography, or infrared light” which appears to be prohibited new matter. Applicant’s specification does not provide any such instrument.
As to claim 27, the claim recites “a remote server which is programmed for determining a condition of the eye, ocular surface, tear, and/or eyelid including a physiological or disease marker based on the image and a comparison with one or more selected images previously obtained” which is a computer implemented function without the necessary/sufficient algorithm (MPEP 2161.01.I).
Applicant’s specification does not appear to contain any algorithm to compare the images and determine a condition of the eye/eyelid. As per MPEP 2161.01.I - When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing…If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-6, 8-14, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badawi (US 2013/0172829; of record) in view of Gravely et al. (US 2008/0081999 - Gravely; of record).
As to claim 1, Badawi teaches a treatment system for determination of a patient (Badawi Fig. 39) comprising
a controller having a housing configured for connection to one or more heating stirps (Badawi Fig. 39 - 340, 338; para. [0127]);
an imager incorporated into an external device (Badawi Fig. 39 - 342; para. [0127] - smartphone; para. [0135]) which is in communication with the controller (Badawi Fig. 39; para. [0127] - external device (342) in communication with controller (340)) and configured to image an eye and/or eyelid (Badawi Fig. 39 - 342; para. [0127] - smartphone, thus necessarily configured to image an eye);
wherein the controller is configured to receive the image of the eye and/or eyelid from the external device (Badawi Fig. 39 - 340, 342; para. [0132]-[0137] - electronic device 342 or controller 340 may leverage an integrated camera; controller may display visual information received from server/external device) and wirelessly transmit the image to a remote server for which is programmed for determining a condition of the eye (Badawi Fig. 39 - 340; para. [0137] - as disclosed, the controller (340) can include an imager, the controller includes a wireless connection and protocols to send necessary data to a remove server (i.e. is configured to transmit an image (e.g. data) to a remote server)) and/or eyelid including physiological or disease markers or progress (Badawi para. [0135]);
a visual, auditory, or haptic indicator for providing an alert (Badawi para. [0032], [0126]; Fig. 39 - 342; para. [0127] - such alerts are implicit to a smartphone, laptop, tablet computer).
While Badawi states that both the controller (340) and external device (342) are configured to communicate wirelessly (Badawi para. [0127], [0137]), Badawi does not specify whether the controller (340) and external device (342) are in wirelessly communication with each other. Additionally while Bawadi determines conditions of the eye/eyelid as treatment progresses (Bawadi para. [0135]) Bawadi doesn’t specify the server determines the physiological or disease markers based on image comparison with one or more selected images previously obtained.
In the same field of endeavor Gravely teaches determining a condition of the eye and/or eyelid including physiological or disease markers (Gravely para. [0002], [0030]) based on an image (Gravely Fig. 6 - 90, 106; Fig. 10; Fig. 11 - 254; para. [0030]) and a comparison with one or more selected images obtained previous to the image (Gravely Fig. 6 - 78; Fig. 11 - 242; para. [0030]; Figs. 7-9; para. [0122]-[0127]) as treatment progresses (Gravely Fig. 6; Figs. 7-9; Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide wireless communication between the controller and external device since, as taught by Badawi, wireless communication is well known in the art for the purposes of transmitting data and other computer implemented functions (Badawi para. [0137], [0138]), and to determine the condition based on image comparison since, as taught by Gravely, such image comparison allows for comparing before and after meibomian gland treatment (Gravely para. [0030], [0122]-[0123]).
As to claim 2, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches a light for illuminating the eye and/or eyelid (Badawi para. [0135]).
As to claim 3, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches a display along the housing (Badawi para. [0137]).
As to claim 4, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches a visual, auditory, or haptic indicator is positioned along the housing (Badawi para. [0137]).
As to claim 5, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches the controller is configured to wirelessly communicate with an external device to receive one or more images of the eye and/or eyelid (Badawi Fig. 39 - 340, 342; para. [0132]-[0138] - electronic device 342 or controller 340 may leverage an integrated camera...controller is in wireless communication with server, etc.).
As to claim 6, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches the controller is configured to track a condition of the eye and/or eyelid over time (Badawi para. [0135]).
As to claim 8, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches the controller is configured to analyze tear film analysis (Badawi para. [0135]).
As to claim 9, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Gravely further teaches the controller is configured to analyze a condition of the eye and/or eyelid based on physiological data received from an imaging device in communication with the controller (Gravely Fig. 10 - 54, 208, 210), wherein the imaging device is configured for infrared meibography, laser confocal meibography, contact meibography, non-contact meibography, optical coherence tomographic meibography, or infrared light (Gravely Fig. 10- 54; para. [0032]; Fig. 22 - 500, 502).
As to claim 10, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches the controller is further configured to receive the image which includes an internal image of an inside of the eye and/or eyelid (Badawi para. [0135]).
As to claim 11, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches the controller is configured to monitor and induce a temperature in the one or more strips to provide a therapy (Badawi para [0033]).
As to claim 12, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches the controller is programmable to maintain a set point above a threshold temperature and below a maximum temperature over a predetermined treatment period (Badawi para. [0089]).
As to claim 13, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches the one or more strips are configured to emit thermal energy to an underlying region of the skin (Badawi para. [0089]), and wherein one or more strips are shaped to follow a location of one or more meibomian glands within the underlying region of the skin (Badawi Figs. 4-23).
As to claim 14, Badawi in view of Gravely teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Badawi further teaches the one or more strips are configured to adhere to an underlying region of skin in proximity to one or both eyes of a subject such that one or more strips allow for the subject to blink naturally with minimal, or no restriction from the one or more strips (Badawi para. [0018]).
As to claim 27, Badawi teaches a treatment system for sizing one or more heating strips for a patient (Badawi Figs. 31, 32, 34, 39) comprising
a controller having a housing configured for connection to one or more heating stirps (Badawi Fig. 39 - 340, 338; para. [0127]);
an imager incorporated into an external device (Badawi Fig. 39 - 342; para. [0127] - smartphone; para. [0135]) which is in communication with the controller (Badawi Fig. 39; para. [0127] - external device (342) in communication with controller (340)) and configured to image an eye and/or eyelid (Badawi Fig. 39 - 342; para. [0127] - smartphone, thus necessarily configured to image an eye);
wherein the controller is configured to receive the image of the eye and/or eyelid from the external device (Badawi Fig. 39 - 340, 342; para. [0132]-[0135] - electronic device 342 or controller 340 may leverage an integrated camera...) and wirelessly transmit the image to a remote server which is programmed for determining a condition of the eye (Badawi Fig. 39 - 340; para. [0137] - as disclosed, the controller (340) can include an imager, the controller includes a wireless connection and protocols to send necessary data to a remove server (i.e. is configured to transmit an image (e.g. data) to a remote server)) and/or eyelid including physiological or disease markers or progress (Badawi para. [0135]) the one or more heating strips are sized to conform over meibomian glands contained within the eyelid (Badawi Figs. 31-32, 34; para. [0027], [0029], [0066], [0068], [0122]);
a visual, auditory, or haptic indicator for providing an alert (Badawi para. [0032], [0126]; Fig. 39 - 342; para. [0127] - such alerts are implicit to a smartphone, laptop, tablet computer).
While Badawi states that both the controller (340) and external device (342) are configured to communicate wirelessly (Badawi para. [0127], [1037]), Badawi does not specify whether the controller (340) and external device (342) are in wirelessly communication with each other. Additionally while Bawadi determines conditions of the eye/eyelid as treatment progresses (Bawadi para. [0135]) Bawadi doesn’t specify the server determines the physiological or disease markers based on image comparison with one or more selected images previously obtained.
In the same field of endeavor Gravely teaches determining a condition of the eye and/or eyelid including physiological or disease markers (Gravely para. [0002], [0030]) based on an image (Gravely Fig. 6 - 90, 106; Fig. 10; Fig. 11 - 254; para. [0030]) and a comparison with one or more selected images previously obtained (Gravely Fig. 6 - 78; Fig. 11 - 242; para. [0030]; Figs. 7-9; para. [0122]-[0127]) as treatment progresses (Gravely Fig. 6; Figs. 7-9; Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide wireless communication between the controller and external device since, as taught by Badawi, wireless communication is well known in the art for the purposes of transmitting data and other computer implemented functions (Badawi para. [0137], [0138]), and to determine the condition based on image comparison since, as taught by Gravely, such image comparison allows for comparing before and after meibomian gland treatment (Gravely para. [0030], [0122]-[0123]).
Conclusion
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 December 8, 2025
1 Office Action mailed October 28, 2025
2 Spec. para. [0090]