DETAILED ACTION
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)(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, 2 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Razali et al. (US 2022/0257115).
Regarding claim 1, Razali (figure 1; [0060-[0063]; whole document) discloses a method for retrofitting a manual slit-lamp biomicroscope for remote operation, the method comprising aligning a slit-lamp biomicroscope 100 on a motion stage of a motorized gantry (vicinity of 106x).
Regarding claim 2, Razali (figure 1; [0060-[0063]; whole document) further discloses wherein the motorized gantry unit comprises a housing comprising the motion stage as a top surface, a processing assembly within the housing, an opening in the motion stage configured to enable a physical connection between the processing assembly and a motor that drives movement of the slit-lamp biomicroscope, and a mounting support for a chin rest assembly.
Regarding claim 4, Razali (figure 1; [0060-[0063]; whole document) further discloses wherein the opening is configured to restrict all wiring to a range of motion that inhibits pinch points between the motorized gantry unit and the slit-lamp biomicroscope.
Regarding claim 5, Razali (figure 1; [0060-[0063]; whole document) further discloses wherein when the motorized gantry unit and the slit-lamp biomicroscope are aligned, there are no pinch points between the motorized gantry unit and the slit-lamp biomicroscope during operation.
Regarding claim 6, Razali (figure 1; [0060-[0063]; whole document) further discloses comprises after the alignment, mechanically and electrically connecting the slit-lamp biomicroscope to the motorized gantry unit without any tools.
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.
Claims 3 and 7-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razali et al. (US 2022/0257115).
Regarding claim 3, Razali discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the housing of the motorized gantry unit provides mechanical rigidity to support at least 20 kilograms per square meter with deflection of less than 1 % of plate width. However, specifying the mechanical rigidity of the housing would have been within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide mechanical rigidity specifications for the purpose of providing a strong housing.
Regarding claim 7, Razali discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the alignment comprises receiving haptic feedback to confirm proper seating of the slit-lamp biomicroscope on the motorized gantry unit. However, this feature would have been well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide feedback for the purpose of confirming the proper seating.
Regarding claims 8-9, Razali discloses all the claimed limitations except for replacing one or more passive rotational joints in the slit-lamp biomicroscope with one or more motorized rotational drive units, and routing one or more control lines from a distribution panel of the motorized gantry unit to the one or more motorized rotational drive units. However, mechanically and electrically connecting the slit-lamp biomicroscope and the motorized gantry unit is well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to connect the slit-lamp biomicroscope and the motorized gantry for the purpose of synchronizing the system.
Regarding claim 10, Razali (figure 1; [0060-[0063]; whole document) further comprises wherein the motorized gantry unit comprises a controller 110 in communication with a wired or wireless network interface to receive input control commands, and wherein the controller is configured to drive the one or more motorized rotational drive units, to control motion of the slit-lamp biomicroscope, based on the received input control commands in response to receiving the input control commands.
Regarding claim 11, Razali discloses all the claimed limitations except for replacing an original ocular pair of the slit-lamp biomicroscope with a stereoscopic camera assembly. However, stereoscope camera and its application is well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a stereoscopic camera for application-specific purpose.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Razali discloses all the claimed limitations except for performing a calibration procedure to set one or more parameters that establish one or more of a range of motion for individual motorized rotational drive units, a rate of motion for individual motorized rotational drive units, or a failsafe behavior in response to a stall or error condition, wherein the calibration procedure comprises setting automatic stop and hold positions for the slit-lamp biomicroscope based on responses to mechanical detents in the slit-lamp biomicroscope. However, this feature would have been well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement a calibration procedure for the purpose of responding to a stall or error condition.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/JACK DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10/16/25