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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2011/0160561 A1 (Hastings) (cited by Applicant) in view of US 2021/0244278 A1 (Frisken) (previously cited).
With regards to claim 1, Hastings discloses an intraocular pressure measurement system (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0067] depict a system 100 for measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP)), comprising: a pressure sensor implantable in an eye (Figs. 1, 2A and ¶¶ [0067], [0069] depict an intraocular pressure sensor 101 which, in use, would be implanted in an eye), the pressure sensor comprising a membrane (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0069] depict the intraocular pressure sensor 101 including a flexible membrane 202), wherein the membrane of the pressure sensor partially defines an optical cavity with a depth that varies based on an intraocular pressure of the eye (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0069] depict a sealed cavity 203 formed by a flexible membrane 202 which deflects in response to changes in intraocular pressure, which results in a depth of the sealed cavity 203 varying based on the IOP); and an external device comprising: a light source configured to emit a plurality of beams, wherein the beams cover a plurality of different positions on the pressure sensor relative to a center of the membrane (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068] disclose a light source 102; ¶ [0142] discloses a light source 102 emits one or more wavelengths of light either simultaneously or sequentially; ¶ [0143] and Fig. 4A depict the interference pattern 300 corresponding to spatial coordinates across the sensor surface and relative to the center of the membrane); a spectrometer configured to receive reflected light coming from the beams and produce an output based on the reflected light coming from the plurality of beams, wherein the output varies based on the depth of the optical cavity and the different positions (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068] disclose a detector 106; ¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0069]-[0071] disclose calculating an IOP based on spectral parameters of an interference pattern, wherein the interference pattern is based on the deflections of the flexible membrane 202; ¶ [0143] and Fig. 4A depict the interference pattern 300 corresponding to different spatial coordinates across the sensor surface); and a processor configured to receive the output (¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0071] depict a detector 106 in communication with a processing device 107) and, based on the output, determine a distance between a first position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor and a second position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor (¶ [0111] discloses detecting separation of interference fringes; also see ¶¶ [0143]-[0144] regarding the calculation of the phase change of the interference pattern 300 based on the frequency of the rings in the x- and y- directions, wherein the change in the phase of the transform indicates a shift in position of the rings) and estimate the intraocular pressure of the eye (¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0069]-[0071] depict processing device 107 calculating an IOP based on spectral parameters of an interference pattern).
Hastings is silent regarding whether the light source is configured to emit a plurality of beams towards the pressure sensor in a manner that at least two of the plurality of beams engage with the pressure sensor at different positions on the pressure sensor relative to a center of the membrane when the at least two of the plurality of beams first reach the pressure sensor, and the spectrometer is configured to receive reflected light coming from the at least two of the plurality of beams and produce an output based on the reflected light, and wherein the first position corresponds to a position at which one of the at least two plurality of beams first reaches the pressure sensor, and the second position corresponds to a position at which another of the at least two of the plurality of beams first reaches the pressure sensor.
In a system relevant to the problem of determining properties based on optical techniques (see at least ¶¶ [0012], [0098] of Frisken), Frisken teaches a light source configured to emit a plurality of beams towards a surface in a manner that at least two of the plurality of beams engage with the surface at different positions on the surface relative to a portion of the surface when the at least two of the plurality of beams first reach the surface (¶¶ [0013], [0090] discloses generating a 2-D array of sample beamlets 125 which impinge simultaneously on at least a portion of a front surface of a cornea; ¶ [0092] discloses the array of relayed beamlets 130 or 172 across the cornea 102 in one or two dimensions; ¶ [0095] discloses illuminating the cornea with a plurality of discrete beamlets), and the spectrometer is configured to receive reflected light coming from the at least two of the plurality of beams and produce an output based on the reflected light (¶ [0093] discloses a spectrometer 148 able to analyze a plurality of grid points, beams or beamlets simultaneously, or at least within a single frame of a 2-D sensor array 154, for snapshot acquisition), wherein a processor is configured to determine properties based on the output (¶¶ [0097]-[0098] depict determining spatially resolved measurements, i.e., a map, of the cornea 102 across the portion illuminated by the beamlets and monitoring relative phase; ¶ [0092] discloses an interference pattern is reflected in the grid of spatial positions determined by the 2-D lenslet array 150 and 2-D aperture array 152), wherein a first position of an interference pattern corresponds to a position at which one of the at least two plurality of beams first reaches the surface, and a second position of an interference pattern corresponds to a position at which another of the at least two of the plurality of beams first reaches the surface (¶ [0092] discloses an interference pattern is reflected in the grid of spatial positions determined by the 2-D lenslet array 150 and 2-D aperture array 152, which indicates that the pattern corresponds to the different positions of the beams that reach the surface of the cornea; ¶ [0022] discloses interferograms for tracking the location of the beamlets on the front surface). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the optical properties of the pressure sensor of Hastings to incorporate that it uses the light source and spectrometer for generating an interference pattern based on the different positions of the beamlets of Frisken. The motivation would have been to provide improved precision for measuring small spatial or temporal variations in thickness (¶ [0008] of Frisken) and/or to improve collection efficiency and reduce cross-talk from multiple scattering (¶ [0095] of Frisken).
With regards to claim 2, the above combination teaches or suggests the pressure sensor comprises: a substrate (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0069] of Hastings depict IOP sensor 101 comprising a substrate member 200); and the membrane opposing the substrate (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0069] of Hastings depict IOP sensor 101 comprising a flexible membrane 202 opposing the substrate member 200), wherein the depth is a distance between the substrate and the membrane (Fig. 2A of Hastings depicts deflection of the flexible membrane 202 resulting in a change in depth between 200 and 202).
With regards to claim 7, the above combination teaches or suggests the optical cavity has a circular cross section (¶ [0112] of Hastings depicts the flexible membrane 202 is circular; Fig. 2A of Hastings depicts the sealed cavity 203 has the same cross-section as the flexible membrane 202).
With regards to claim 8, the above combination teaches or suggests the processor is configured to correct for angular misalignment between the spectrometer and the pressure sensor based on the output (¶¶ [0013], [0073] of Hastings discloses the processing device may correct for errors which arise from angular deviation of a sensor normal from an optical axis of a readout system).
With regards to claim 21, Hastings discloses an intraocular pressure measurement system (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0067] depict a system 100 for measurement of intraocular pressure (IOP)), comprising: a pressure sensor implantable in an eye (Figs. 1, 2A and ¶¶ [0067], [0069] depict an intraocular pressure sensor 101 which, in use, would be implanted in an eye), wherein the pressure sensor defines an optical cavity with a depth that varies based on an intraocular pressure of the eye (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0069] depict a sealed cavity 203 formed by a flexible membrane 202 which deflects in response to changes in intraocular pressure, which results in a depth of the sealed cavity 203 varying based on the IOP); and an external device comprising: a light source configured to emit a plurality of beams, wherein the beams cover a plurality of different positions on the pressure sensor (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068] disclose a light source 102; ¶ [0142] discloses a light source 102 emits one or more wavelengths of light either simultaneously or sequentially; ¶ [0143] and Fig. 4A depict the interference pattern 300 corresponding to spatial coordinates across the sensor surface); a spectrometer configured to receive reflected light coming from the beams and produce an output based on the reflected light coming from the plurality of beams, wherein the output varies based on the depth of the optical cavity and different positions (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068] disclose a detector 106; ¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0069]-[0071] disclose calculating an IOP based on spectral parameters of an interference pattern, wherein the interference pattern is based on the deflections of the flexible membrane 202; ¶ [0143] and Fig. 4A depict the interference pattern 300 corresponding to spatial coordinates across the sensor surface); and a processor configured to receive the output and, based on the output, estimate the intraocular pressure of the eye (¶ [0111] discloses detecting separation of interference fringes; also see ¶¶ [0143]-[0144] regarding the calculation of the phase change of the interference pattern 300 based on the frequency of the rings in the x- and y- directions, wherein the change in the phase of the transform indicates a shift in position of the rings; ¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0069]-[0071] detector 106 communicates with a processing device 107 which performs a phase calculating an IOP based on spectral parameters of an interference pattern).
Hastings is silent regarding whether the light source is configured to emit a plurality of non-overlapping beams towards the pressure sensor, and the spectrometer is configured to receive reflected light coming from at least two of the plurality of non-overlapping beams and produce an output based on the reflected light and a position at which each of the at least two of the plurality of non-overlapping beams first reaches the pressures sensor.
In a system relevant to the problem of determining properties based on optical techniques (see at least ¶¶ [0012], [0098] of Frisken), Frisken teaches a light source configured to emit a plurality of non-overlapping beams towards a surface (¶¶ [0013], [0090] discloses generating a 2-D array of sample beamlets 125 which impinge simultaneously on at least a portion of a front surface of a cornea; ¶ [0092] discloses the array of relayed beamlets 130 or 172 across the cornea 102 in one or two dimensions; ¶ [0095] discloses illuminating the cornea with a plurality of discrete beamlets, which indicates the beamlets are separated), and the spectrometer is configured to receive reflected light coming from at least two of the plurality of non-overlapping beams and produce an output based on the reflected light (¶ [0093] discloses a spectrometer 1498 able to analyze a plurality of grid points, beams or beamlets simultaneously, or at least within a single frame of a 2-D sensor array 154, for snapshot acquisition) and a position at which each of the at least two of the plurality of non-overlapping beams first reaches the surface (¶ [0092] discloses an interference pattern is reflected in the grid of spatial positions determined by the 2-D lenslet array 150 and 2-D aperture array 152, which indicates that the pattern corresponds to the different positions of the beams that reach the surface of the cornea; ¶ [0022] discloses interferograms for tracking the location of the beamlets on the front surface), wherein a processor is configured to determine properties based on the output (¶¶ [0097]-[0098] depict determining spatially resolved measurements, i.e., a map, of the cornea 102 across the portion illuminated by the beamlets and monitoring relative phase; ¶ [0092] discloses an interference pattern is reflected in the grid of spatial positions determined by the 2-D lenslet array 150 and 2-D aperture array 152)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the optical properties of the pressure sensor of Hastings to incorporate that it uses the light source and spectrometer for generating an interference pattern based on the different positions of the beamlets of Frisken. The motivation would have been to provide improved precision for measuring small spatial or temporal variations in thickness (¶ [0008] of Frisken) and/or to improve collection efficiency and reduce cross-talk from multiple scattering (¶ [0095] of Frisken).
With regards to claim 22, the above combination teaches or suggests a separation between spectral peaks of the reflected light coming from the at least two of the plurality of non-overlapping beams is at least 30 nanometers (¶ [0127] of Frisken teaches a spectral width of 40 nm).
With regards to claim 24, the above combination teaches or suggests the plurality of non-overlapping beams comprises a linear array of non-overlapping beams (¶ [0095] of Frisken discloses a 1-D array of sample beamlets).
Claims 3-6, 9, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings in view of Frisken, as applied to respective claims 1, 2, and 21 above, in view of US 2017/0209045 A1 (Choo) (Cited by Applicant).
With regards to claim 3, the above combination teaches or suggests the pressure sensor further comprises a spacer layer located between the membrane and the substrate, wherein the spacer layer, the substrate and the membrane are bonded to define the optical cavity (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0105] of Hastings depict a spacer member 201 between membrane 202 and sealed cavity 203; ¶ [0106] of Hastings discloses the sealed cavity can be formed by at least one of vacuum contact bonding, vacuum anodic bonding, vacuum adhesive bonding, thermal annealing, etching through release holes and low pressure chemical vapor deposition sealing of these holes, and gettering of residual gas in the cavity, which requires for the substrate, spacer layer, and membrane to be bonded)
The above combination is silent with regards to a bezel affixed to the membrane and comprising an opening for the at least two of the plurality of beams to impinge on the optical cavity.
In the same field of endeavor of sensing IOP, Choo teaches a bezel affixed to the membrane and comprising an opening for the at least two beams to impinge on the optical cavity (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0037] depict a protective section 125 affixed to a membrane 120 and comprising an opening so as to not cover any portion of the chamber 105). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure sensor of the above combination to incorporate a bezel affixed to the membrane and comprising an opening for the at least two beams to impinge on the optical cavity as taught by Choo. The motivation would have been to provide protection that allows for the installation of IOP sensor into a patient's eye without touching flexible membrane (see ¶ [0037] of Choo).
With regards to claim 4, the above combination teaches or suggests the pressure sensor comprises: a substrate forming one portion of the optical cavity (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0069] of Hastings depict IOP sensor 101 comprising a substrate member 200 which forms a portion of sealed cavity 203); a spacer comprising a first central opening forming a second portion of the optical cavity (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0105] of Hastings depict a spacer member 201 comprising a central opening which forms another portion of sealed cavity 203); the membrane affixed to the spacer and forming a third portion of the optical cavity (Fig. 2A and ¶ [0069] of Hastings depict IOP sensor 101 comprising a flexible membrane 202 fixed to the spacer member 201 and forming a third portion of the sealed cavity 203).
The above combination is silent with regards to a bezel comprising a second central opening in alignment with the first central opening.
In the same field of endeavor of sensing IOP, Choo teaches a bezel comprising a second central opening in alignment with the first central opening (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0037] depict a protective section 125 affixed to a membrane 120 and comprising an opening in alignment with the chamber 105). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure sensor of the above combination to incorporate a bezel comprising a second central opening in alignment with the first central opening as taught by Choo. The motivation would have been to provide protection that allows for the installation of IOP sensor into a patient's eye without touching flexible membrane (see ¶ [0037] of Choo).
With regards to claim 5, the above combination teaches or suggests that the first central opening is circular (¶ [0112] of Hastings depicts the flexible membrane 202 is circular; Fig. 2A of Hastings depicts the sealed cavity 203 has the same cross-section as the flexible membrane 202), the second central opening is circular and has a diameter equal to or less than the first diameter (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0037] of Choo depict the diameter of the circular opening of the protective section 125 being equal to or less than the diameter of the chamber 105), the membrane has a diameter of 300 µm or 500 µm (¶¶ [0112], [0114] of Hastings), and the dimensions and materials of the components depend on the desired mechanical and optical properties (see at least ¶¶ [0112], [0114] of Hastings).
The above combination is silent with regards to whether the first central opening has a first diameter of between 0.19 millimeters (mm) and 0.35 mm, and the second central opening has a second diameter of between 0.19 mm and 0.35 mm.
The diameters of the first and second central openings and would depend up the factors of desired mechanical and optical properties of the sensor. As such, the diameters are results-effective variables that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the desired mechanical and optical properties. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the diameters so as to obtain the desired mechanical and optical properties In view of the above, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the first and second central openings of the above combination such that the first central opening has a first diameter of between 0.19 millimeters (mm) and 0.35 mm, and the second central opening has a second diameter of between 0.19 mm and 0.35 mm. See MPEP 2144.05 (II) (A).
Alternatively or additionally, claim 5 would have been obvious in view of the combination since the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 21044.04).
With regards to claim 6, the above combination teaches or suggests the bezel comprises fiducial markers (Fig. 1 and 2 of Choo depict the bezel having edges, which are capable of being used as fiducial markers).
With regards to claim 9, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the processor is further configured to correct for lateral displacement error between the spectrometer and the pressure sensor based on the output.
In the same field of endeavor of sensing IOP, Choo teaches the processor is further configured to correct for lateral displacement error between the spectrometer and the pressure sensor based on the output (¶ [0044] discloses fixating a probe at a transverse coordinate within a valid focal range in order to prevent over and under-reflection; ¶ [0047] discloses the illumination probe may be coupled to one or more servomotors or linear actuators and IOP process 400 may be configured to send instruction to a controller to automatically adjust the illumination probe based on the alignment analysis). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hastings to incorporate the processor is further configured to correct for lateral displacement error between the spectrometer and the pressure sensor based on the output as taught by Choo. The motivation would have been to automatically provide a proper alignment so as to provide a more accurate IOP measurement.
With regards to claim 25, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the pressure sensor comprises an annular fiducial marker.
In the same field of endeavor of sensing IOP, Choo teaches a bezel affixed to the membrane and comprising an opening for the at least two beams to impinge on the optical cavity (Figs. 1-2 and ¶ [0037] depict a protective section 125 affixed to a membrane 120 and comprising an opening so as to not cover any portion of the chamber 105), wherein the bezel comprises an annular fiducial marker (Fig. 1 and 2 of Choo depict the bezel having edges, which are capable of being used as fiducial markers). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure sensor of the above combination to incorporate a bezel affixed to the membrane and comprising an opening for the at least two beams to impinge on the optical cavity as taught by Choo. The motivation would have been to provide protection that allows for the installation of IOP sensor into a patient's eye without touching flexible membrane (see ¶ [0037] of Choo).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hastings in view of Frisken, as applied to claim 21 above, in view of US 2017/0156588 A1 (Ren) (Previously cited).
With regards to claim 23, the above combination is silent with regards to whether the pressure sensor includes a fiducial marker, and wherein the output is based on reflections of one or more of the plurality of non-overlapping beams from the fiducial marker.
In a system relevant to the problem of determining optical properties at areas of interest, Ren teaches an element includes a fiducial marker (¶ [0055] and Fig. 7 depicts a location indicator 230 includes a key 220 which corresponds to locations within an OCT image), and wherein the output is based on reflections from the fiducial marker (¶ [0055] discloses the OCT image including information on the location indicator 230 and key 220). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the pressure sensor of the above combination to incorporate that it includes a fiducial marker, wherein the output is based on reflections from the fiducial marker as taught by Ren. The motivation would have been to improve the identification of the location of the pressure sensor.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of copending Application No. 17/827,034 (reference application) in view of Frisken and Hastings.
Claim 4 of the reference application includes all of the limitations of claims 1-2 and 21 except a light source configured to emit a plurality of beams and whether the light source is configured to emit a plurality of non-overlapping beams towards the pressure sensor in a manner that at least two of the plurality of beams engage with the pressure sensor at different positions on the pressure sensor relative to a center of the membrane when the at least two of the plurality of beams first reach the pressure sensor, and the spectrometer is configured to receive reflected light coming from the at least two of the plurality of non-overlapping beams and produce an output based on the reflected light coming from the at least two of the plurality of beams, wherein the output varies based on the depth of the optical cavity and the different positions, and a processor configured to receive the output and, based on the output, determine a distance between a first position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor and a second position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor.
In a system relevant to the problem of determining properties based on optical techniques (see at least ¶¶ [0012], [0098] of Frisken), Frisken teaches a light source configured to emit a plurality of non-overlapping beams towards a surface in a manner that at least two of the plurality of beams engage with the surface at different positions on the surface relative to a center of the surface when the at least two of the plurality of beams first reach the surface (¶¶ [0013], [0090] discloses generating a 2-D array of sample beamlets 125 which impinge simultaneously on at least a portion of a front surface of a cornea; ¶ [0092] discloses the array of relayed beamlets 130 or 172 across the cornea 102 in one or two dimensions; ¶ [0095] discloses illuminating the cornea with a plurality of discrete beamlets, which indicates the beamlets are separated), and the spectrometer is configured to receive reflected light coming from at least two of the plurality of non-overlapping beams and produce an output based on the reflected light coming from the at least two of the plurality of beams (¶ [0093] discloses a spectrometer 1498 able to analyze a plurality of grid points, beams or beamlets simultaneously, or at least within a single frame of a 2-D sensor array 154, for snapshot acquisition), wherein the output varies based on the depth between optical surface and the different positions (¶¶ [0096], [0097] discloses the apparatus receiving reflections from different surfaces of the cornea to generate the interference signal, wherein the surfaces are spaced from each other; ¶ [0092] discloses an interference pattern is reflected in the grid of spatial positions determined by the 2-D lenslet array 150 and 2-D aperture array 152, which indicates that the pattern corresponds to the different positions of the beams that reach the surface of the cornea; ¶ [0022] discloses interferograms for tracking the location of the beamlets on the front surface), wherein a processor is configured to determine properties based on the output based on the different positions of the beams (¶¶ [0097]-[0098] depict determining spatially resolved measurements, i.e., a map, of the cornea 102 across the portion illuminated by the beamlets and monitoring relative phase; ¶ [0092] discloses an interference pattern is reflected in the grid of spatial positions determined by the 2-D lenslet array 150 and 2-D aperture array 152). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the optical properties of the pressure sensor of claim 4 of the reference application to incorporate that it uses the light source and spectrometer for generating an interference pattern based on the different positions of the beamlets of Frisken. The motivation would have been to provide improved precision for measuring small spatial or temporal variations in thickness (¶ [0008] of Frisken) and/or to improve collection efficiency and reduce cross-talk from multiple scattering (¶ [0095] of Frisken).
In a system relevant to the problem of detecting IOP, Hastings teaches a processor configured to receive the output (¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0071] depict a detector 106 in communication with a processing device 107) and, based on the output, determine a distance between a first position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor and a second position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor (¶ [0111] discloses detecting separation of interference fringes; also see ¶¶ [0143]-[0144] regarding the calculation of the phase change of the interference pattern 300 based on the frequency of the rings in the x- and y- directions, wherein the change in the phase of the transform indicates a shift in position of the rings) and estimate the intraocular pressure of the eye (¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0069]-[0071] depict processing device 107 calculating an IOP based on spectral parameters of an interference pattern). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate that it is configured to, based on the output, determine a distance between a first position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor and a second position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor, and estimating the intraocular pressure of the eye as taught by Hastings. The motivation would have been to improve sensitivity and sensing precision and accuracy (¶ [0102] of Hastings).
Claims 1-2 and 21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/781,767 (reference application) in view of Hastings and Frisken.
Claim 1 of the reference application includes all of the limitations of claims 1-2 and 21 except a light source configured to emit a plurality of beams and whether the light source is configured to emit a plurality of non-overlapping beams towards the pressure sensor in a manner that at least two of the plurality of beams engage with the pressure sensor at different positions on the pressure sensor relative to a center of the membrane when the at least two of the plurality of beams first reach the pressure sensor, and the spectrometer is configured to receive reflected light coming from the at least two of the plurality of non-overlapping beams and produce an output based on the reflected light coming from the at least two of the plurality of beams, wherein the output varies based on the depth of the optical cavity and the different positions, and a processor configured to receive the output and, based on the output, determine a distance between a first position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor and a second position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor.
In a system relevant to the problem of determining properties based on optical techniques (see at least ¶¶ [0012], [0098] of Frisken), Frisken teaches a light source configured to emit a plurality of non-overlapping beams towards a surface in a manner that at least two of the plurality of beams engage with the surface at different positions on the surface relative to a center of the surface when the at least two of the plurality of beams first reach the surface (¶¶ [0013], [0090] discloses generating a 2-D array of sample beamlets 125 which impinge simultaneously on at least a portion of a front surface of a cornea; ¶ [0092] discloses the array of relayed beamlets 130 or 172 across the cornea 102 in one or two dimensions; ¶ [0095] discloses illuminating the cornea with a plurality of discrete beamlets, which indicates the beamlets are separated), and the spectrometer is configured to receive reflected light coming from at least two of the plurality of non-overlapping beams and produce an output based on the reflected light coming from the at least two of the plurality of beams (¶ [0093] discloses a spectrometer 1498 able to analyze a plurality of grid points, beams or beamlets simultaneously, or at least within a single frame of a 2-D sensor array 154, for snapshot acquisition), wherein the output varies based on the depth between optical surface and the different positions (¶¶ [0096], [0097] discloses the apparatus receiving reflections from different surfaces of the cornea to generate the interference signal, wherein the surfaces are spaced from each other; ¶ [0092] discloses an interference pattern is reflected in the grid of spatial positions determined by the 2-D lenslet array 150 and 2-D aperture array 152, which indicates that the pattern corresponds to the different positions of the beams that reach the surface of the cornea; ¶ [0022] discloses interferograms for tracking the location of the beamlets on the front surface), wherein a processor is configured to determine properties based on the output based on the different positions of the beams (¶¶ [0097]-[0098] depict determining spatially resolved measurements, i.e., a map, of the cornea 102 across the portion illuminated by the beamlets and monitoring relative phase; ¶ [0092] discloses an interference pattern is reflected in the grid of spatial positions determined by the 2-D lenslet array 150 and 2-D aperture array 152)). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the optical properties of the pressure sensor of claim 1 of the reference application to incorporate that it uses the light source and spectrometer for generating an interference pattern based on the different positions of the beamlets of Frisken. The motivation would have been to provide improved precision for measuring small spatial or temporal variations in thickness (¶ [0008] of Frisken) and/or to improve collection efficiency and reduce cross-talk from multiple scattering (¶ [0095] of Frisken).
In a system relevant to the problem of detecting IOP, Hastings teaches a processor configured to receive the output (¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0071] depict a detector 106 in communication with a processing device 107) and, based on the output, determine a distance between a first position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor and a second position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor (¶ [0111] discloses detecting separation of interference fringes; also see ¶¶ [0143]-[0144] regarding the calculation of the phase change of the interference pattern 300 based on the frequency of the rings in the x- and y- directions, wherein the change in the phase of the transform indicates a shift in position of the rings) and estimate the intraocular pressure of the eye (¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0069]-[0071] depict processing device 107 calculating an IOP based on spectral parameters of an interference pattern). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the above combination to incorporate that it is configured to, based on the output, determine a distance between a first position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor and a second position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor, and estimating the intraocular pressure of the eye as taught by Hastings. The motivation would have been to improve sensitivity and sensing precision and accuracy (¶ [0102] of Hastings).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Prior Art Rejections
There are new grounds of rejections necessitated by the claim amendments filed 12/22//2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the response filed 12/22/2025, the Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image1.png
194
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Specifically, Hastings teaches a light source configured to emit a plurality of beams, wherein the beams cover a plurality of different positions on the pressure sensor relative to a center of the membrane (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068] disclose a light source 102; ¶ [0142] discloses a light source 102 emits one or more wavelengths of light either simultaneously or sequentially; ¶ [0143] and Fig. 4A depict the interference pattern 300 corresponding to spatial coordinates across the sensor surface and relative to the center of the membrane); a spectrometer configured to produce an output which varies based on the depth of the optical cavity and the different positions (Fig. 1 and ¶ [0068] disclose a detector 106; ¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0069]-[0071] disclose calculating an IOP based on spectral parameters of an interference pattern, wherein the interference pattern is based on the deflections of the flexible membrane 202; ¶ [0143] and Fig. 4A depict the interference pattern 300 corresponding to spatial coordinates across the sensor surface); and a processor configured to receive the output (¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0071] depict a detector 106 in communication with a processing device 107) and, based on the output, determine a distance between a first position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor and a second position of the different positions at which the beams first reach the pressure sensor (¶ [0111] discloses detecting separation of interference fringes; also see ¶¶ [0143]-[0144] regarding the calculation of the phase change of the interference pattern 300 based on the frequency of the rings in the x- and y- directions, wherein the change in the phase of the transform indicates a shift in position of the rings) and estimate the intraocular pressure of the eye (¶¶ [0011]-[0013], [0069]-[0071] depict processing device 107 calculating an IOP based on spectral parameters of an interference pattern).
Frisken teaches a light source configured to emit a plurality of non-overlapping beams, and the spectrometer is configured to produce an output which varies based on the depth between optical surface and the different positions. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the determination of the optical properties of the pressure sensor of Hastings to incorporate that it uses the light source and spectrometer for generating an interference pattern based on the different positions of the beamlets of Frisken. The motivation would have been to provide improved precision for measuring small spatial or temporal variations in thickness (¶ [0008] of Frisken) and/or to improve collection efficiency and reduce cross-talk from multiple scattering (¶ [0095] of Frisken).
Therefore, it is the combination of Hastings in view of Frisken which teaches the above limitations. Additionally, the Applicant has not provided any evidence that the references teach away from the invention or render the prior art unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
With regards to claim 6, the Applicant asserts on page 11 of the remarks filed 12/22/2025:
PNG
media_image2.png
142
658
media_image2.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive. The Examiner asserts that the anti-reflection coating of Choo would further assist in the bezel being used as fiducial marker. Hastings teaches the use of the pressure sensor to provide an interference pattern which depends upon the reflections of light from the substrate and membrane (¶ [0011], [0143] and Fig. 4A of Hastings). The anti-reflection coating 230 would absorb the light that reaches the protective section/layer 125 and provide known boundaries for the interference pattern, which allows the layer 125 and coating 230 to function as a point of reference for a measure.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAMUEL C KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-8637. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST.
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571) 272-5596. 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.
/S.C.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JACQUELINE CHENG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791