DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to a filing of 9/12/2025.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 9/12/2022 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant argument filed on 9/12/2025 is considered, and is persuasive. Restriction of 5/14/2025 is withdrawn. All claims 1-15 are considered in this action.
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 1-15 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “… the intensity homogeneity ratio …” (line 18-19) is indefinite and lacks antecedent. Claim cites “an intensity homogeneity value” (line 12). But nowhere in claim specifies “an intensity homogeneity ratio”. It is unclear what is a relation between “intensity homogeneity value” and “intensity homogeneity ratio”; and how to calculate the “intensity homogeneity ratio”.
More, cited term of “…to measure intensity of the wavefront at a plurality of points” (line 4-5) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. Appears that claimed measurements at a plurality of points result one same intensity, how?
Claims 2-5 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 6 has same “the intensity homogeneity ratio” (line 13-14) issue as that in claim 1.
Claims 7-10 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 6 through their dependency from claim 6.
Claim 11 has same “the intensity homogeneity ratio” (line 19-20) issue as that in claim 1.
Claims 12-15 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 11 through their dependency from claim 11.
Regarding claim 9, cited term of “… the signal-to-noise ratio is low” (line 2) is indefinite and lacks antecedent. Claim 9 depends on claim 6, but nowhere in claim 6 and claim 9 cites “a signal-to-noise ratio”.
Claim 10 is rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 9 through their dependency from claim 9.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
(a) Campbell et al (US 20070216867) teaches a method for early identification of cataracts in a patient based on spot pattern intensity (abstract; figs. 2-6) , the method comprising: a. providing an auto-refractometer (110) (fig. 5, 80) comprising: i. a wavefront sensor (111) configured to measure intensity of the wavefront at a plurality of points (fig. 5, 90, 92); b. providing a computing device (120), communicatively coupled to the auto-refractometer (110), comprising a processor capable of executing computer-readable instructions, and a memory component comprising a plurality of computer-readable instructions (fig. 2, 28, 29); c. measuring, by the wavefront sensor (111), a spot pattern from an eye of the patient (fig. 5, 90, 92; fig. 9, 146); f. identifying, by the computing device (120), a cataract in the eye of the patient (fig. 9, 148).
(b) ZHOU et al (US 20100110379) teaches a method for early identification of cataracts in a patient based on spot pattern intensity (abstract; fig. 5), the method comprising: a. providing an auto-refractometer (110) (fig. 5, 500) comprising: i. a wavefront sensor (111) configured to measure intensity of the wavefront at a plurality of points (fig. 5, 528); b. providing a computing device (120), communicatively coupled to the auto-refractometer (110), comprising a processor capable of executing computer-readable instructions, and a memory component comprising a plurality of computer-readable instructions (fig. 5, 532, 592); c. measuring, by the wavefront sensor (111), a spot pattern from an eye of the patient (fig. 5, 592, figs. 11 and 12); d. calculating an intensity value of the spot pattern; e. calculating a signal-to-noise ratio based on the intensity value (¶[0088], line 1-18); and f. identifying, by the computing device (120), a cataract in the eye of the patient based on the intensity homogeneity value (abstract; fig. 8, 812).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872