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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 January 7, 2026 has been entered.
All elected claims are identical to the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and all elected claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant did not amend the claims as agreed in the interview on December 31, 2025. Examiner was under the impression the issue of “project…ring-shaped pattern” would be resolved by clarifying the claims to recite the pattern has an inner and outer diameter as seen in Figure 1B; e.g. diameters R2, R3.
Accordingly, the claims continue to recite and encompass the elected species of Figures 2 and 3 whereby the projected pattern is a ring-shaped spot defined by pinhole P0.
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the election of species and claim 1 being generic, it appears Applicant is not understanding of what is a species and what has been elected.
Applicant’s election of Species A means electing the embodiment(s) of Figures 2 and 3.
As per Applicant’s remarks that claim 1 is generic to Species A (MPEP 806.04(d)), Examiner agrees. This means that claim 1 reads on (is infringed by) the species of Figures 2 and 3. Therefore, when claim 1 recites “the illumination system is configured to project at least one ring-shaped pattern of respective light source light onto the retinal focal plane” this limitation, when mapped to Figures 2 and 3 (Species A), is infringed by elements (11), (30), (41), (42), (43). As shown and discussed by Applicant’s specification1 the Figures 2, 3 illumination system uses a pinhole (30) which creates the spot type ring-shaped light pattern via the circular hole (30).
Applicant’s remarks, as understood by Examiner, suggest that Applicant considers the election of Species A to be an election of elements (31, 32), however this is not correct. The statement in the restriction mailed August 19, 2024 about what Species A includes is the statement about the mutually exclusive feature(s) of Species A (MPEP 806.04(f)). Specifically, Species A (e.g. Figures 2, 3) has the mutually exclusive feature whereby the imaging side uses separate transmission filters (31, 32)) to create two separate images (21, 22). A first image with (31) which is a spot type ring-shaped pattern similar to (30) and a second filter (32) to create a donut type ring-shaped pattern.
Species B, Figure 4, employes a different imaging scheme. The Species B scheme uses a single filter (labeled as 31, 32) with both reflective and transmissive properties.
Species C, Figure 5, employs yet another imaging scheme. The Species C imaging scheme uses a digital light project (DLP) at (45) for the second filter (32) which reflects light to both cameras (21, 22), where filter (31) is before camera (21).
So far, in all of Species A-C, the illumination scheme is the same. A pinhole (30) creating a spot type ring-shaped pattern.
Species D, Figure 6, employs a different illumination scheme and a different imaging scheme. The Species D illumination scheme uses two separate filters (31, 32), one creates a spot type ring-shaped pattern (31) and one creates a donut type ring-shaped pattern (32). Associated with these two filters are two light sources (11, 12) which emit different wavelengths. The Species D imaging scheme uses a single filter (30) and a wavelength dependent beam splitter (dichroic beamsplitter 45) whereby the different wavelengths are capture on different cameras (21, 22).
Species E, Figure 7, employs a different illumination scheme and a different imaging scheme. The Species E illumination scheme is a single transmissive filter (labeled as 31, 32) essentially as a spatial light modulator (DLP, LCD) which creates the spot type ring-shaped pattern and the donut type ring-shaped pattern. Species E imaging scheme is a single pinhole filter and a single camera (21).
Applicant’s assertion that claim 1 is generic to Species A means that Applicant’s claim 1 includes a pinhole illumination scheme (30) and an imaging system with two separate filters (31, 32). One or both features being mutually exclusive to the other Species B-E. These mutually exclusive features were outlined in the Office Action mailed August 19, 2024, however those features are not the individual elements elected. What was elected were the embodiments of Figures 2 and 3.
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 1-7, 10, 16-17 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 1, the claim recites “ring-shaped pattern” which, in light of Applicant’s remarks, is unclear. Specifically, Applicant’s elected species of Figures 2, 3 explicitly generates a “ring-shaped pattern” via a pinhole (30), yet Applicant has stated that such pinhole cannot project a ring-shaped pattern2. The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art are no longer clear what is, and is not, a ring-shaped pattern given the contradiction between Applicant’s remarks and specification (MPEP 2173 - The primary purpose of this requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent). For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand such ring-shaped pattern includes a circular spot generated from a pinhole as shown by Applicant’s Figures 2, 3.
Claims 2-7, 10, 16-17 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Thall (US 5,751,395; of record).
As to claim 1, Thall teaches an ophthalmoscope (Thall Fig. 10) for imaging a retina (Thall Fig. 10) the ophthalmoscope comprising
an illumination system comprising at least one light source (Thall Fig. 10 - 16) and a first set of projection optics (Thall Fig. 10 - 18, 20, 22) configured to project a respective light pattern of source light from the respective light source onto a retinal focal plane coinciding with the retina (Thall Fig. 10 - 20; col. 7:29-30);
a measurement system comprising at least one light detector (Thall Fig. 10 - 56; col. 10:64-67) and a second set of projection optics configured to measure light from the retinal focal plane resulting from the source light of the respective light pattern interacting with the retina (Thall Fig. 10 - 60, 24, 72);
wherein the illumination system is configured to project at least one ring-shaped pattern of respective source light onto the retinal focal plane (Thall Fig. 10 - 20; col. 7:29-30 - illumination system (16, 20) using pinhole (20) to generate circular spot pattern which projected onto retina (36));
wherein the measurement system is configured to measure scattered light from the retinal focal plane resulting from scattering of the at least one ring-shaped pattern of the respective source light via the retina (Thall Fig. 10 - 56, 68, 70, 72; col. 9:55-67; col. 10:1-20);
wherein the scattered light is measured from a central spot at a center of the ring-shaped pattern on the retinal focal plane (Thall Fig. 10 - 68; col. 9:55-61; col. 9:35-40 - as discussed, the central aperture (68) is sized and opacified to enhance the retinal contrast image of the light passing therethrough).
PNG
media_image1.png
539
1024
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
644
1305
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to claim 3, Thall teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Thall further teaches the illumination system comprises one or more spatial filters (Thall Fig. 10 - 20), positioned between the respective light source and the retinal focal plane, to shape the respective light pattern projected on the retinal focal plane (Thall Fig. 10 - 20; col. 7:29-30).
As to claim 4, Thall teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Thall further teaches the measurement system comprises one or more spatial filters, positioned between the retinal focal plane and the respective light detector, to filter incoming light to determine which part of the retinal focal plane is measured (Thrall Fig. 10 - 70, 68; col. 9:34-40; col. 9:55-67; col. 10:1-20).
As to claim 5, Thall teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Thall further teaches a spatial filter (Thall Fig. 10 - 72) disposed in a first light path between a respective pair of the at least one light source and at least one light detector (Thrall Fig. 10 - (72) between (16) and (56)), wherein the spatial filter is configured to exclusively pass a first part of the light received in a first detection channel of the respective detector from a first area on the retina that overlaps the respective light pattern from which said first part of the light originates (Thall Fig. 10 - 68, 70; col. 9:55-67; col. 10:1-20).
As to claim 6, Thall teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Thall further teaches a spatial filter (Thall Fig. 10 - 72) disposed in a second light path between a respective pair of the at least one light source and at least one light detector (Thrall Fig. 10 - (72) between (16) and (56)), wherein the spatial filter is configured to exclusively pass a second part of the light received in a second detection channel of the respective light detector from a second area on the retina that is offset by a lateral distance or radius with respect to the respective light pattern from which said second part of the light originates (Thrall Fig. 10 - 70; col. 9:55-67).
As to claim 7, Thall teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Thall further teaches at least one spatial filter to pass the scattered light is formed by a pinhole opening (Thrall Fig. 10 - 68) that is confocal with a center of the light pattern formed by the ring-shaped pattern on the retina (Thrall Fig. 10 - 68, 36, rays; Figs. 6-7 - 26, 36; col. 9:55-60 - as shown and discussed, the spatial filter (68) is located at the optical transform plane which is confocal to the retinal (36)).
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Imamura (US 2018/0000338; of record).
As to claim 2, Thall teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Thall teaches the measurement system is configured to measure different parts of light resulting from respective illumination by a respective one or more light patterns (Thall Fig. 10 - 68, 70, 20), wherein a first part of the resulting light, exclusively originating from a first area on the retina that overlaps with a respective illumination pattern is measured (Thall Fig. 10 - 70), and the scattered light, formed by a second part of the resulting light exclusively originating from the central spot at the center of the ring-shaped pattern is measured (Thall Fig. 10 - 68).
Thrall does not specify the return light parts are measured in different channels.
In the same field of endeavor Imamura teaches an ophthalmic measurement device (Imamura Fig. 3A - 210, 211) measuring a central spot from a center of an illuminating light of a retina in a first channel (Imamura Fig. 3B - 210-1, 211-1; Fig. 3C; Fig. 3E - 210-1-1; para. [0075]-[0077]) and a second channel measuring light from another retinal area (Imamura Fig. 3B - 211-2, 211-3; Fig. 3E - 210-1-2, 210-1-3; para. [0075]-[0077]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide first and second channels since, as taught by Imamura, such imaging allows for separating the confocal (central spot) and nonconfocal (further retinal area) regions (Imamura Fig. 3B - 211-1, 211-2, 211-3; para. [0075]-[0079]).
Claims 10, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thall as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Webb (US 5,867,251; of record).
As to claim 10, Thall teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify a position of the light being passed by one or more spatial filters to a respective detector is determined by a controller. In the same field of endeavor Webb teaches an ophthalmoscope having a spatial filter and a controller for controlling a position of light passed by the filter to a detector (Webb Fig. 1 - 60, 65, 80; col. 2:5-15; col. 5:30-40; col. 5:53-67; col. 6:1-15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide such a controllable filter since, as taught by Webb, this allows for controlling which areas of the object (retina) are imaged to the detector (Webb Fig. 1 - 60, 65, 80; col. 2:5-15; col. 5:30-40; col. 5:53-67; col. 6:1-15).
As to claim 16, Thall teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Thall teaches the illumination system is configured to project the at least one ring-shaped pattern of source light by spatially filtering the source light via a ring-shaped spatial filter disposed at a focal plane (Thall Fig. 10 - 20; col. 7:29-40) in a path between the light source and the retina (Thall Fig. 8 - 16, 20, 36) and light focusing at filter (20) is also focused at the retinal plane (36), however Thall doesn’t clarify if the filter focal plane and retina are conjugate.
In the same field of endeavor Webb teaches an ophthalmoscope having a light source (Webb Fig. 1 - 10) and a spatial filter (Webb Fig. 2 - 20; col. 3:64-65) conjugate to a retinal focal plane (Webb Fig. 2 - 20, 50; col. 2:5-15; col. 2:59-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the spatial filter conjugate to the retinal focal plane since, a taught by Webb, such relationship allows for imaging the spatial filter to the retinal plane (Webb Fig. 2 - 20, 50; col. 2:5-15; col. 2:59-65).
As to claim 17, Thall teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Thall further teaches the measurement system is configured to measure light from the retinal focal plane by confocal imaging via a pinhole opening (Thrall Fig. 10 - 68, 36, rays; Figs. 6-7 - 26, 36; col. 9:55-60 - as shown and discussed, the spatial filter (68) is located at the optical transform plane which is confocal to the retinal (36)) disposed between the retina and the at least one light detector (Thrall Fig. 10 - 68, 56), but doesn’t specify the pinhole focal plane is conjugate with the retinal focal plane.
In the same field of endeavor Webb teaches an ophthalmoscope having a light source (Webb Fig. 1 - 10) and a pinhole (Webb Fig. 2 - 60; col. 3:64-65) conjugate to a retinal focal plane (Webb Fig. 2 - 60, 50; col. 2:59-65; col. 4:35-40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide the spatial filter conjugate to the retinal focal plane since, a taught by Webb, such relationship allows for imaging the spatial filter to the retinal plane (Webb Fig. 2 - 60, 50; col. 2:59-65; col. 4:35-40).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Yates (US 2012/0050683) is cited as additional art that teaches claim 1.
All elected claims are identical to the claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 and all elected claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 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 March 2, 2026
1 Page 17, lines 16-19
2 Remarks filed August 22, 2025; page 12.