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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 18, 2025 has been entered. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments made to claims 1, 6 and 9. Claims 1-23 are currently pending, with claims 13-23 being withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed June 18, 2025, with respect to the objection made to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous objection of claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Though Applicant’s amendments have overcome some of the previous rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b), there are still indefiniteness issues present in the claims. Regarding the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 112(b), Applicant argues that as the claim has been amended to correct antecedent basis issues, as well as amended to recite “a curve diagram generating step, generating a curve diagram for each of the one or more order vibrational modes by the calculating module”, and “a determining step (S3), respectively comparing by the calculating module the one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject with a corresponding order vibrational mode of at least one reference cornea based on the curve diagram established by the calculating module, wherein a different thickness feature of a specific section of the cornea is respectively magnified and reflected in the curve diagram for each different order vibrational mode” (emphasis added), these amendments provide clarity to the claim since this demonstrates that a target cornea is compared with only a single reference cornea. The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument because it is still unclear how in the case that the single reference cornea is a single standard cornea or a single morphological cornea, the method determines if the target cornea is a match with a morphological cornea or standard cornea respectively. The end of claim 1 recites “wherein in the determining step (S3), determining the morphology of the corneal topography of the cornea of the target subject comprises: if the one or more vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject is different from the vibrational modes of the standard cornea, determining the cornea of the target subject is different from the vibrational modes of the standard cornea, determining the cornea of the target subject is different from the standard cornea, or if the one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject is a match with the vibrational modes of corresponding one of the at least a specific morphological cornea, determining the cornea of the target subject is the corresponding one of the at least a specific morphological cornea”. Therefore, since there is a single reference cornea that is a standard cornea or a morphological cornea, it is unclear how the method is able to determine that the cornea of the target subject is different from the standard cornea or corresponds with a specific morphological cornea in the case that the reference cornea is only a standard cornea or, vice versa, a morphological cornea. As a result, the claims are still rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
Regarding the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues that the amendments made to claim 1 make claim 1 patent-eligible under 35 USC 101 because the curve diagram generating step is a specific machine-implemented step. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the curve diagram generating step provides a technical solution for analyzing corneal topography because each curve diagram is a specialized technical representation of the measured physical parameters. These technical limitations do not add any meaningful limitations to the claim because these technical limitations fail to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The judicial exception itself does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea. Moreover, regarding Applicant’s assertion that the curve diagram generating step provides a technical solution for analyzing corneal topography and provides concrete technical elements that provide clinically beneficial results, Applicant has not provided evidence of an improvement, therefore the mere assertion that there is an improvement to the technological field is not persuasive. Therefore, the claims are still rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claims are drawn to merely making a determination of the morphology of corneal topography of a cornea of a target subject. See 35 USC 101 rejections below.
Regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the rejections of the claims under 35 USC 103 over Yen in view of Shih for claims 1-6 & 8-12 and Yen in view of Shih and in further view of Askarian for claim 7 are improper because as the claims have been amended to recite generating a curve diagram for each of the one or more order vibrational modes by a calculating module, and using the curve diagrams to compare a reference cornea to the cornea of a target subject for each vibrational mode, which Applicant asserts is not taught in the previously recited references. Further, Applicant argues that Yen does not disclose the determination of corneal shape and morphology but instead focuses on using assumed values for calculations and iterative adjustments to obtain true values of a Young’s modulus and damping coefficients for a single cornea, and further does not involve a comparison with a curve diagram of vibrational modes of other referenced corneas. With regards to Shih, Applicant asserts that Shih merely involves the comparison of numerical values and does not involve any morphological comparison between different corneas. Furthermore, Applicant argues that the combination of Yen in view of Shih cannot achieve the present invention because Yen discloses that assumptions are made about their model in that the eyeball is a perfectly spherical diaphragm and that the thickness and material of the diaphragm are uniform everywhere. Regarding the Askarian reference, Applicant argues that though Askarian determines and analyzes corneal morphology, the techniques described in Askarian are primarily image processing, boundary detection, and slope analysis. As such, Applicant asserts that none of the previously cited references disclose obtaining corneal morphology through a curve diagram generating step that generates a curve diagram for each of the one or more vibrational modes by the calculating module, and a determining step that compares distinct corneas based on the curve diagram.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Yen discloses a curve diagram for each of the one or more order vibrational modes by a calculating module (see Yen, fig. 5B). Furthermore, Shih discloses comparing a reference cornea to the cornea of a target subject (i.e., obtained intraocular pressure values are compared to a database that contains different intraocular pressure values corresponding to different diseases) (see Yen, par 0020). Therefore, the combination of Yen in view of Shih discloses generating a curve diagram for each of the one or more order vibrational modes by a calculating module, and using the curve diagrams to compare a reference cornea to the cornea of a target subject for each vibrational mode. Moreover, Yen discloses a model that comprises different shapes of an eyeball (see Yen, figs. 2A-2F), and thus Yen does pertain to corneal shape and morphology. Additionally, Yen teaches that the model disclosed in the reference can be used for patients and not just in a model that uses assumptions such as a spherical uniform diaphragm, wherein values such as intraocular pressures or corneal thicknesses can be measured of a patient and then used with the model (see Yen, par 0063). Further, with regards to the Askarian reference, Askarian teaches a diagnostic tool for eye disease detection using a smartphone that determines whether a cornea of a subject has keratoconus based upon the thickness, steepness, and morphology of the cornea, wherein the keratoconus of the cornea can be classified as mild, moderate, advanced or severe (see Askarian, par 0035), and therefore even though techniques such as image processing, boundary detection, and slope analysis are used, those techniques are used to determine whether a cornea has keratoconus which is what is required in claim 7. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments against the prior art references are unpersuasive. See 35 USC 103 rejections below.
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 1-12 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 “a curve diagram generating step, generating a curve diagram for each of the one or more order vibrational modes by the calculating module”, and “a determining step (S3), respectively comparing by the calculating module the one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject with a corresponding order vibrational mode of at least one reference cornea based on the curve diagram established by the calculating module, wherein a different thickness feature of a specific section of the cornea is respectively magnified and reflected in the curve diagram for each different order vibrational mode” (emphasis added). It is unclear how in the case that the single reference cornea is a single standard cornea or a single morphological cornea, the method determines if the target cornea is a match with a morphological cornea or standard cornea respectively. The end of claim 1 recites “wherein in the determining step (S3), determining the morphology of the corneal topography of the cornea of the target subject comprises: if the one or more vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject is different from the vibrational modes of the standard cornea, determining the cornea of the target subject is different from the vibrational modes of the standard cornea, determining the cornea of the target subject is different from the standard cornea, or if the one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject is a match with the vibrational modes of corresponding one of the at least a specific morphological cornea, determining the cornea of the target subject is the corresponding one of the at least a specific morphological cornea”. Therefore, since there is a single reference cornea that is a standard cornea or a morphological cornea, it is unclear how the method is able to determine that the cornea of the target subject is different from the standard cornea or corresponds with a specific morphological cornea in the case that the reference cornea is only a standard cornea or, vice versa, a morphological cornea. For examination purposes, it will be interpreted that there are a plurality of reference corneas that comprise of at least one standard cornea and at least one specific morphological cornea.
Dependent claims are similarly rejected as their base claim.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of steps or acts, including determining a morphology of a corneal topography of a cornea of a target subject. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The step of determining a morphology of the corneal topography of a cornea of a target subject, presumably based on comparing one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject with a corresponding order vibrational mode of at least one reference cornea based on a curve diagram, sets forth a judicial exception. This step describes a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. The judicial exception itself does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional steps of obtaining parameters, mathematically converting the parameters, and generating a curve diagram for each of one or more order vibrational modes. The obtaining, converting, and generating steps are each recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering and comparing activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining, converting and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims as they generally recite method steps pertaining to data gathering and converting, wherein the mathematical conversion steps are direct to an Abstract Idea (i.e., mathematical concepts). The obtaining, converting, generating and calculating steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 20160275264 -- as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Yen" in view of US Patent Application Publication 20160174933 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Shih".
With respect to claim 1, Yen teaches a corneal dynamic model algorithm and system (see Yen, abstract, par 0002, 0052 & 0062, fig. 3) wherein the system executes the algorithm comprising the following steps:
a parameter obtaining step, based on an original contour line of a cornea of a target subject as a reference, obtaining by a calculating module 13 of the corneal dynamic model algorithm (i.e., a calculating unit) (see Yen, par abstract, par 0013, 0052 & 0062, fig. 3) a relative displacement of each observation point of a contour line of the cornea pressed and changed with time from the beginning of pressing the cornea by an external pressure (i.e., by an ophthalmotonometer) to a predetermined time after the pressing is finished (see Yen, par 0032-0033, 0039-0042, 0050-0053, figs. 1A-B, 5A-B, 8A);
a conversion step, performing by the calculating module (i.e., the calculating unit) a mathematical function conversion of the relative displacement of the each observation point of the contour line of the cornea pressed and changed with time with respect to a spatial contour at each observation time point (see Yen, par 0034-0039, 0051-0052), so as to respectively obtain one or more order vibrational modes representing the contour line of the time points (i.e., modal shapes are obtained from a Legendre polynomial function) (see Yen, par 0051), wherein the mathematical function conversion with respect to the spatial contour at the each observation time point is performed by using Legendre transformation formula or Fourier transformation formulas (see Yen, par 0037 & 0051), and each of the order vibrational modes is obtained by applying corresponding order value and the relative displacement into Legendre transformation formula or Fourier transformation formulas (see Yen, par 0034-0051);
and a curve diagram generating step, generating a curve diagram for each of the one or more order vibrational modes by the calculating module, wherein a different thickness feature of a specific section of the cornea is respectively magnified and reflected in the curve diagram for each vibrational mode (i.e., the curve diagram shows the displacements of the diaphragm (i.e., cornea) of the model over time for each of the vibrational modes) (see Yen, fig. 5B, par 0025, 0055-0057).
Yen fails to teach that the method further comprises a determining step that compares the one or more vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject to corresponding order vibrational modes of at least one reference cornea based on the curve diagram established by the calculating module, wherein a morphology of the corneal topography of the cornea of the target subject is determined, wherein the at least one reference cornea includes a standard cornea, a specific morphological cornea, or any combination thereof, and wherein in the determining step, determining the morphology of the corneal topography of the cornea of the target subject comprises: if the one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject is different from the vibrational modes of the standard cornea, determining the cornea of the target subject is different from the standard cornea, or if the one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject is a match with the vibrational modes of corresponding one of the at least a specific morphological cornea, determining the cornea of the target subject is the corresponding one of the at least a specific morphological cornea.
Shih teaches comparing obtained intraocular pressure values of a cornea with values in a database that pertain to normal and abnormal intraocular pressure values that correspond to different diseases, wherein the computer of the system that executes the method can determine other physical characteristics of the cornea of a subject based upon their intraocular pressure measurements (see Shih, par 0009, 0020).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yen such that it comprises a determining step that compares the one or more vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject to corresponding order vibrational modes of the reference cornea, and that determines a morphology of the corneal topography of the cornea of the target subject because that would improve the system of Yen by permitting it to determine or calculate other physical characteristics of a subject based upon the comparisons determined between the subject data and the reference data stored in a database (see Shih, par 0020).
With respect to claim 2, Yen further teaches:
a data acquisition step, implemented before the parameter obtaining step, to obtain and parse an image group of the target subject, so as to obtain changes of the contour line of the cornea, wherein the image group presents a series of changes over time of the cornea of the target subject from the beginning of pressing the cornea by the external pressure to the predetermined time after the pressing is finished (see Yen, par 0006, 0008, 0052, 0063, fig. 7);
and the parameter obtaining step obtaining the relative displacement of the each observation point of the contour line of the cornea pressed and changed with time by parsing the image group (see Yen, par 0050-0053, 0056-0059, figs. 5A & 5B).
With respect to claim 3, Yen further teaches the mathematical function conversion with respect to the spatial contour at the each observation time point is performed by using the following Legendre transformation formula,
PNG
media_image1.png
31
222
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein a, (t) is a value of Legendre coefficient changed with time, n is an order value of different order vibrational modes, and f(θ, t) is a value of the relative displacement at different angles, wherein the different angles refer to a coordinate angle of the each observation point, P(cosθ) is Legendre polynomial, and the coordinate angle of the each observation point is 0 (i.e., the modal shapes of the eye are obtained by performing a Legendre transform using a Legendre polynomial function) (see Yen, par 0051).
With respect to claim 4, Yen further teaches the mathematical function conversion with respect to the spatial contour at the each observation time point is performed by using the following Fourier transformation formulas,
PNG
media_image2.png
124
173
media_image2.png
Greyscale
wherein ao (t) is a value of Fourier coefficient applicable to a zeroth mode changed with time, an(t) and bn(t) are respectively values of Fourier coefficients applicable to even order vibrational modes and odd order vibrational modes changed with time, and f(, t) is a value of the relative displacement at different angles, wherein the different angles refer to a coordinate angle of the each observation point, and the coordinate angle of the each observation point is 0 (i.e., a Fourier transform is used to transform functions that are respective to time) (see Yen, par 0037).
With respect to claim 5, Yen further teaches the one or more order vibrational modes comprise at least first six order vibrational modes: a zeroth mode (MO), a first mode (M1), a second mode (M2), a third mode (M3), a fourth mode (M4), and a fifth mode (M5), wherein the zeroth mode (MO) highlights a feature of moving backward of an entire shape of the cornea, the first mode (M1) highlights a feature of rotating left and right of a shape of a 1/2 part of the cornea, the second mode (M2) highlights a feature of depression of a shape of a 1/3 part in a center of the cornea, the third mode (M3) highlights a feature of high-and-low distortion of a shape of a 1/4 part adjacent to the center of the cornea, the fourth mode (M4) highlights a feature of depression of a shape of a 1/5 part in the center of the cornea, and the fifth mode (M5) highlights a feature of high-and-low distortion of a shape of a 1/6 part adjacent to the center of the cornea (see Yen, figs. 2A-2F, par 0053).
With respect to claim 6, Yen in view of Shih further teaches corresponding order vibrational mode of the standard cornea is calculated and a corresponding curve diagram is established based on the calculated result of actual normal corneas of a plurality of normal persons without eye diseases based on the parameter obtaining step and the conversion step and the curve diagram generating step, and according to differences between the cornea and the standard cornea with respect to the zeroth mode (MO), the first mode (M1), the second mode (M2), the third mode (M3), the fourth mode (M4), and the fifth mode (M5), the determining step (S3) comprises respectively determining corneal features of the cornea with respect to the standard cornea based on the corneal features represented by the zeroth mode (MO), the first mode (M1), the second mode (M2), the third mode (M3), the fourth mode (M4), and the fifth mode (M5) (i.e., a comparison is made between obtained data of a subject’s cornea and the reference data of a healthy/normal cornea, wherein determining features of the subject’s cornea comprises comparing the subject’s cornea to the healthy/normal cornea) (see Yen, fig. 5B, par 0025, 0055-0057, Shih, par 0020).
With respect to claim 8, Yen in view of Shih further teaches at least one reference cornea comprises an artificially set virtual cornea (i.e., a simplified model of an eyeball) as the standard cornea (see Yen, par 0032-0033, fig. 1B), and a corresponding order vibrational mode of the artificially set virtual cornea is preset (see Yen, figs. 2A-2F), and according to differences between the cornea and the artificially set virtual cornea with respect to the zeroth mode (MO), the first mode (M1), the second mode (M2), the third mode (M3), the fourth mode (M4), and the fifth mode (M5), the determining step (S3) comprises respectively determining corneal features of the cornea with respect to the artificially set virtual cornea based on the corneal features represented by the zeroth mode (MO), the first mode (M1), the second mode (M2), the third mode (M3), the fourth mode (M4), and the fifth mode (M5) (i.e., a comparison is made between obtained data of a subject’s cornea and the reference data of a healthy/normal cornea, wherein determining features of the subject’s cornea comprises comparing the subject’s cornea to the healthy/normal cornea) (see Shih, par 0020).
With respect to claim 9, Yen in view of Shih further teaches the one or more specific morphological corneas have their own respective vibrational modes (i.e., the reference cornea corresponds to different disease states) (see Shih, par 0020), and respective corresponding order vibrational modes of the one or more specific morphological corneas are respectively calculated and respective curve diagrams are established based on the calculated result of each of the one or more specific morphological corneas based on the parameter obtaining step, the conversion step, and the curve diagram generating step (i.e., the reference corneas have their own respective vibrational modes) (see Yen, , figs. 2A-2F & 5B, par 0025, 0055-0057, Shih, par 0020).
With respect to claim 10, Yen in view of Shih further teaches at least one corresponding order vibrational mode of different corresponding order vibrational modes of each of the one or more specific morphological corneas has at least one curve feature, and the determining step comprises determining, through comparison, whether the one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea have the corresponding curve features in the respective corresponding vibrational modes, and when the one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea have the curve features above a preset threshold, the determining step determines that the cornea is a corresponding morphological cornea of the one or more specific morphological corneas having the curve features (i.e., the vibrational modes have specific curve features and when comparing the subject’s cornea to the reference cornea, the curve features are used to determine the morphology (i.e., the disease state) of the cornea) (see Yen, par 0053, figs. 2A-2F, Shih, par 0020).
With respect to claim 11, Yen in view of Shih further teaches the vibrational modes for the one or more specific morphological corneas have respective curve forms (see Yen, par 0053), and in the determining step, each vibrational mode of the cornea of the target subject is compared with each of the corresponding order vibrational modes of the one or more specific morphological corneas, and when the one or more order vibrational modes of the cornea of the target subject accord with the specific curve forms of a corresponding morphological cornea of the one or more specific morphological corneas above a preset mode quantity, the determining step determines that the cornea of the target subject is the corresponding morphological cornea of the one or more specific morphological corneas according with the specific curve forms (i.e., the vibrational modes have specific curve features and when comparing the subject’s cornea to the reference cornea, the curve features are used to determine the morphology (i.e., the disease state) of the cornea) (see Yen, par 0053, figs. 2A-2F, Shih, par 0020).
With respect to claim 12, Yen further teaches obtaining the measured relative displacement changed with time of the each observation point of the contour line of the cornea of the target subject pressed by a tonometer (see Yen, 0052-0053).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yen in view of Shih as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 20190274536 --as previously cited--, hereinafter referenced as "Askarian".
With respect to claim 7, Yen in view of Shih fails to teach that based on a determining result of the corneal features, if the cornea of the target subject has a portion that is thinner than other portions of the cornea and protrudes outwards or is depressed inwards relative to the standard cornea, it is determined in the determining step that the target subject suffers from keratoconus or corneal ectasia.
Askarian teaches a diagnostic tool for eye disease detection using a smartphone that determines whether a cornea of a subject has keratoconus based upon the thickness, steepness, and morphology of the cornea, wherein the keratoconus of the cornea can be classified as mild, moderate, advanced or severe (see Askarian, par 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Yen in view of Shih such that that based on a determining result of the corneal features, if the cornea of the target subject has a portion that is thinner than other portions of the cornea and protrudes outwards or is depressed inwards relative to the standard cornea, it is determined in the determining step that the target subject suffers from keratoconus or corneal ectasia because that would permit the system of Yen in view of Shih by to detect various eye diseases that when timely detected, can effectively be treated (see Askarian, par 0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Destiny J Cruickshank whose telephone number is (571)270-0187. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached on (571) 272-4730. 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/D.J.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3791