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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group II, drawn to an ophthalmology inspection device, in the reply filed on 04/08/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that it should be no undue burden on the Examiner to consider all claims in the single application. This is not found persuasive because Group I, drawn to a pupil tracking method, is classified in A61B 3/113. Group II, drawn to an ophthalmology inspection device, is classified in A61B 3/14. There is a serious search and examination burden because the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification, the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter, and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-12 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/08/2025.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a display focal-length adjusting element" and "an imaging focal-length adjusting element” in claims 14 and 16, respectively, which are being interpreted to be an element that can physically move the display device or image sensor, or at least one lens of the display lens assembly or imaging lens assembly, or adjust a curvature of a liquid-state lens of the display imaging assembly or imaging lens assembly, respectively.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 13-18 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 20200121185 A1), hereinafter Lee, in view of Wang et al. (CN 103530618 A), hereinafter Wang. A translated copy of Wang is included.
Regarding independent claim 13, Lee discloses an ophthalmology inspection device comprising
an illumination element (102; Fig. 1; ¶0018), generating an illumination light beam to illuminate an external eye region (20; Fig. 1; ¶0018) of a subject (Fig. 1; ¶0018);
an image sensor (105; Fig. 1; ¶0018), receiving a light beam light reflected (L2; Fig. 1) from the external eye region to generate an external eye image (although Lee‘s device primarily functions to shoot a fundus, the cornea area CO of the tested eyeball 20 appears in the field of vision FV of the sensation image SI, therefore the external region of the eye is also being imaged; ¶0033), wherein the external eye image includes a pupil of the subject (¶0019); and
an imaging lens assembly (104; Fig. 1; ¶0018), disposed at a light-input side of the image sensor to condense the light beam reflected (L2) from the external eye region (20) and form an image to the image sensor (105) (¶0020); and
a signal processing element (110; Fig. 1; ¶0018), electrically connected with the image sensor (105) (Fig. 1; ¶0023), wherein the signal processing element (110) performs a pupil tracking method (¶0002), which comprises steps:
acquiring the external eye image output by the image sensor (105) (¶0023).
Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil. Namely, Lee does not disclose the pupil tracking method comprises:
performing an image preprocessing on the external eye image, wherein the image preprocessing includes performing a binary conversion on the external eye image to obtain a binary image;
finding out a contour boundary of each feature in the binary image, and finding out a pupil feature based on a variance of a distance from the contour boundary of each feature to a corresponding reference point; and
fitting the contour boundary of the pupil feature in a boundary fitting method to find a center coordinate of the pupil feature, and calculating a deviation between an optical axis of the imaging lens assembly and the pupil of the subject according to the center coordinate of the pupil feature.
However, Wang fills the silence of Lee with a pupil tracking method comprising steps (interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f)):
performing an image preprocessing on the external eye image, wherein the image preprocessing includes performing a binary conversion on the external eye image to obtain a binary image (¶0025); finding out a contour boundary of each feature in the binary image (¶0033), and fitting the contour boundary of the pupil feature in a boundary fitting method to find a center coordinate of the pupil feature (¶0033), and therefore is a functional equivalent to the steps disclosed above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to comprise these steps involving converting the image to a binary image and fitting contour boundaries in order to identify the center point of the pupil since Wang fills the silence in Lee and this would be the use of a known technique for the purpose of more accurately being able to determine the center point of the pupil and perform pupil tracking (abstract of Wang).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13 further comprising
an internal display device (108; Fig. 1; ¶0018), electrically connected with the signal processing element (110), wherein the signal processing element (110) presents an indication signal on the internal display device (108) according to the deviation (guide information, ¶0023);
a display lens assembly (107; Fig. 1; ¶0018), disposed at a light-output side of the internal display device (108) (Fig. 1);
a display focal length-adjusting element (109; Fig. 1; ¶0025), connected with the internal display device (108) or the display lens assembly (109) to adjust a focal length of the indication signal (¶0025);
a light splitter (103; Fig. 1; ¶0018), optically coupled to the internal display device (108) and the imaging lens assembly (104) (Fig. 1), imaging the indication signal on a fundus of the subject (¶0023) to remind the subject to adjust a relative position of the ophthalmology inspection device (intended use) (¶0023) and the subject to make the ophthalmology inspection device be exactly aligned to the pupil of the subject (¶0023).
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13 further comprising
an external display device (112; Fig. 1; ¶0026), coupled to the signal processing element (110) (Fig. 1; ¶0026), wherein according to the deviation, the signal processing element (110) presents an indication signal on the external display device (112) to remind an operator to adjust a relative position of the ophthalmology inspection device (intended use) (¶0027) and the subject to make the ophthalmology inspection device be exactly aligned to the pupil of the subject (¶0027).
Regarding claim 16, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13 further comprising
an imaging focal length-adjusting element (106; Fig. 1; ¶0024), connected with at least one of the image sensor (105) and the imaging lens assembly (104) to physically move the image sensor (105) or at least one lens of the imaging lens assembly (104) or adjust a curvature of a liquid-state lens of the imaging lens assembly (104) to make the light beam reflected (L2) from the external eye region be imaged on the image sensor (105) (¶0024).
Regarding claim 17, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13, which is a fundus camera (¶0001), a tonometer, a corneal topography device, or an automatic refractometer.
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13. Lee is silent on the steps of the image preprocessing, namely the image preprocessing further includes a step: reducing a size of the external eye image before the binary conversion to reduce a computation amount of succeeding image processing steps.
However, it is known in the art to reduce a size of an image to reduce computation time and improve efficiency, as evidenced by Wang by selecting region of interest to reduce the scope of image processing (¶0068). If one wanted to reduce the scope of image processing and improve efficiency to reduce a computation amount of succeeding image processing steps at the beginning of the image preprocessing, one would be motivated to do it in a similar way as stated above by reducing an image size prior to performing the binary conversion of the image. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), see MPEP 2143.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee to incorporate the image processing steps of Wang, namely to reduce an image size, for the purpose of improving image processing efficiency.
Regarding claim 25, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13. Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil, Namely, Lee does not disclose while the variance of a feature is smaller than or equal to a preset value, the feature is the pupil feature.
However, Wang fills the silence of Lee with a pupil tracking method which includes steps of converting the image to a binary image (¶0025) and fitting contour boundaries (¶0033) to determine the center of the pupil (¶0033), and is therefore a functional equivalent of the step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to comprise these steps involving converting the image to a binary image and fitting contour boundaries in order to identify the center point of the pupil since Wang fills the silence in Lee and this would be the use of a known technique for the purpose of more accurately being able to determine the center point of the pupil and perform pupil tracking (abstract of Wang).
Regarding claim 26, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13. Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil, Namely, Lee does not disclose the boundary fitting method may be a circle fitting method, an ellipse fitting method, or a minimum enclosing circle method.
However, Wang fills the silence of Lee with a pupil tracking method which includes steps of converting the image to a binary image (¶0025) and fitting contour boundaries (¶0033) to determine the center of the pupil (¶0033), in which the fitting method is ellipse fitting (¶0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to comprise these steps involving converting the image to a binary image and fitting contour boundaries in order to identify the center point of the pupil since Wang fills the silence in Lee and this would be the use of a known technique for the purpose of more accurately being able to determine the center point of the pupil and perform pupil tracking (abstract of Wang).
Regarding claim 27, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13. Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil, Namely, Lee does not disclose a least square method is used to find out the center coordinate of the pupil feature.
However, Wang fills the silence of Lee with a pupil tracking method which includes steps of converting the image to a binary image (¶0025) and fitting contour boundaries (¶0033) to determine the center of the pupil (¶0033), in which the fitting method is least squares fitting (¶0033).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to comprise these steps involving converting the image to a binary image and fitting contour boundaries in order to identify the center point of the pupil since Wang fills the silence in Lee and this would be the use of a known technique for the purpose of more accurately being able to determine the center point of the pupil and perform pupil tracking (abstract of Wang).
Claim(s) 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200121185 A1) in view of Wang (CN 103530618 A) and further in view of Mohamed et al. (US 20060274973 A1), hereinafter Mohamed.
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13. Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil, Namely, Lee does not disclose the image preprocessing further includes a step: performing a noise reduction treatment of the external eye image before the binary conversion to eliminate grain-like noises of the external eye image.
However, Mohamed fills the silence of Lee with an eye tracking method which includes the step of noise reduction on the image (¶0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to include an image preprocessing step for noise reduction since Mohamed fills the silence in Lee and this would be the use of a known technique for the purpose of reducing noise effects.
Regarding claim 20, Lee in view of Wang and further in view of Mohamed discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 19. Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil, Namely, Lee does not disclose the noise reduction treatment is realized by an average filter, a Gaussian filter, a median filter, or a bilateral filter.
However, Mohamed fills the silence of Lee with an eye tracking method which includes the step of noise reduction on the image (¶0050) wherein the noise reduction treatment is realized by a median filter (¶0050).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to include an image preprocessing step for noise reduction since Mohamed fills the silence in Lee and this would be the use of a known technique for the purpose of reducing noise effects.
Regarding claim 21, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13. Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil, Namely, Lee does not disclose the image preprocessing further includes a step: performing an image enhancing treatment of the external eye image before the binary conversion to enhance image boundaries.
However, Mohamed fills the silence of Lee with an eye tracking method which includes the step of using histogram equalization on the image (¶0049). Although Mohamed doesn’t state the histogram equalization is for image enhancement, the method of histogram equalization is a known method of enhancing contrast in an image, and would therefore enhance image boundaries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to include an image preprocessing step for image enhancement using histogram equalization since Mohamed fills the silence in Lee and this would be the use of a known technique for the purpose of enhancing contrast.
Regarding claim 22, Lee in view of Wang and further in view of Mohamed discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 21. Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil, Namely, Lee does not disclose the image enhancing treatment is realized by a gamma correction technology, a histogram equalization technology, a homomorphic filter technology, an unsharp masking technology, or a combination thereof.
However, Mohamed fills the silence of Lee with an eye tracking method which includes the step of using histogram equalization on the image (¶0049). Although Mohamed doesn’t state the histogram equalization is for image enhancement, the method of histogram equalization is a known method of enhancing contrast in an image, and would therefore enhance image boundaries.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to include an image preprocessing step for image enhancement using histogram equalization since Mohamed fills the silence in Lee and this would be the use of a known technique for the purpose of enhancing contrast.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200121185 A1) in view of Wang (CN 103530618 A) and further in view of S. et al. (US 20130010096 A1), hereinafter S.
Regarding claim 23, Lee in view of Wang discloses the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13. Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil, Namely, Lee does not disclose the image preprocessing further includes a step: performing an opening operation of morphology on the binary image to compensate for defects or small-area noises generated in the binary conversion.
However, S. fills the silence of Lee with an eye tracking method which includes the step of morphology transformation (¶0054).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to include an image preprocessing step for of an opening operation of morphology since Mohamed fills the silence in Lee and this would be the use of a known technique for the purpose of removing small noise in the image.
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20200121185 A1) in view of Wang (CN 103530618 A) and further in view of Man (CN 110555875 A). A translated copy of Man is included.
Regarding claim 24, Lee in view of Wang disclose the ophthalmology inspection device according to claim 13. Lee is silent on the steps and image recognition technology used to acquire the position of the pupil, Namely, Lee does not disclose the reference point is a center of a minimum enclosing circle fitting the contour boundary of each feature.
However, Man discloses a pupil detection method which uses a center of minimum bounding circle method to detect the pupil (page 2 lines 13-14), which is a functional equivalent of the step.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the pupil tracking method to include the step of making the reference point a center of a minimum enclosing circle fitting a contour boundary since Man fills the silence in Lee and this would be a known technique for the purpose of more accurately being able to determine the center point of the pupil and perform pupil tracking.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kramer et al. (US 20190125184 A1) discloses a similar fundus camera for pupil tracking. Chu et al. (US 20210334998 A1) discloses an eye tracking method using image processing methods including boundary lines on a binary image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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, 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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 29, 2025
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872