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 Objections
Claims 6, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 6 and 7 do not end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 13-19 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.
Regarding claim 13 and its dependents, claim 13 recites “at least one data processor” in line 2 but then recites “by a processor” in line 6; it is unclear and thus indefinite as to whether this second instance of “processor” is the same as “data processor”; especially the since the claim also recites instances of “the at least one data processor” and “the processor” which could indicate that there is a difference between “data processor” and “processor”. Claim terms should be consistent to avoid confusion. For examination purposes below, it will be assumed that these refer to the same element in light of the instant disclosure.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 9, 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujieda (US 20020040218 A1; 4/4/2002) in view of Padula (US 20220183546 A1; Filed 12/10/2020).
Regarding claim 1, Fujieda teaches a method of coordinating a surgical procedure (Abstract; Fig. 1; Fig. 4), comprising:
receiving, by a processor (Fig. 1), an input for an ophthalmic surgical procedure ([0006]-[0007]);
determining, by the processor, first feedback for the surgical procedure (Fig. 4; [0033] “instructs the patient to fix his/her eye…illumination status of the fixation light”; [0045]-[0048]; [0051]; patient is instructed via operator and fixation light to fix eyes to certain position);
receiving, by the processor and in response to the first feedback, a user input (Fig. 4; [0045]-[0048]; patient fixes eyes in response to fixation light);
receiving, by the processor, second feedback from a laser apparatus (Fig. 4; [0006]-[0007]; [0018] “eye-ball position detecting”; [0045]-[0048]; system tracks patient eye position and gives information via light, voice, vibration to patient and user of surgery status);
performing, by the processor, eye tracking verification for a user (Fig. 4; [0018] “eye-ball position detecting”; [0045]-[0048]; system tracks patient eye position); and
displaying, by the processor, a graphical display (Fig. 4; [0044]-[0047]; fixation light changes illumination/color/intensity to graphically inform patient which would read on “graphical display”).
Fujieda does not teach a graphical display of a virtual assistant. However, Padula teaches in the same field of endeavor (Fig. 3) a graphical display of a virtual assistant ([0046] “virtual assistant”; [0058]-[0060]). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Fujieda to include this feature as taught by Padula because this enables vision testing/training by the user “without direct medical professional assistance” ([0013]).
Claim 13 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, in the combination Fujieda and Padula, Fujieda teaches wherein displaying the graphical display comprises displaying the graphical display on a user interface (Fig. 4; [0044]-[0047]; fixation light changes illumination/color/intensity to graphically inform patient which would read on “graphical display on a user interface” because it interfaces with patient, also [0047] “display means” for surgeon as well).
Regarding claim 3, in the combination Fujieda and Padula, Fujieda teaches wherein the first feedback comprises instructions for a patient of the surgical procedure (Fig. 4; [0033] “instructs the patient to fix his/her eye…illumination status of the fixation light”; [0045]-[0048]; [0051]; patient is instructed via operator and fixation light to fix eyes to certain position).
Claim 14 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 4, in the combination Fujieda and Padula, Fujieda teaches wherein the user input comprises an eye position of the patient (Fig. 4; [0018] “eye-ball position detecting”; [0045]-[0048]; system tracks patient eye position), a voice input, a touch input (Fig. 1; footswitch 8 and joystick 7 require touch), or a keyboard input (Fig. 1, computer 9 has keyboard).
Claim 15 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 9, in the combination Fujieda and Padula, Padula teaches performing a post-treatment review or post-exercise review, where results of a training exercise may be measured and analyzed (Fig. 2-3; [0035]-[0036]; [0046]).
Claim(s) 8, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujieda and Padula as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of Vogelsang (US 20230181365 A1; Filed 5/21/2021).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Fujieda and Padula does not teach wherein the second feedback from the laser apparatus relates to an eye tracking verification by determining a focal point of an eye using the laser apparatus. Note as discussed above regarding claim 1 that Fujieda teaches eye tracking from laser apparatus. However, Vogelsang teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract) wherein the second feedback from the laser apparatus relates to an eye tracking verification by determining a focal point of an eye using the laser apparatus ([0038-0039). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Fujieda and Padula to include this feature as taught by Vogelsang because this enables better alignment for surgery ([0044]-[0045]).
Claim 18 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 8 above.
Claim(s) 10, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujieda and Padula as applied to claims 1, 13 above, and further in view of Juhasz (US 20130050649 A1; 2/28/2013)
Regarding claim 10, the combination Fujieda and Padula does not teach wherein the ophthalmic surgical procedure includes a cataract surgery, a cataract LASIK, a FemtoSecond surgery, an MIGS implant surgery, or a Keratoconus surgery. However, Juhasz teaches in the same field of endeavor laser eye surgical system in which there is fixation/indicator for patient to adjust eyes in order to align, the instructions are given to patient iteratively in light of patient’s actions (Fig. 8A; [0087]-[0089]) wherein the ophthalmic surgical procedure includes a cataract surgery ([0039]; [0051]), a cataract LASIK, a FemtoSecond surgery, an MIGS implant surgery, or a Keratoconus surgery. Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Fujieda and Padula to include this feature as taught by Juhasz because this is suitable for performing cataract surgery by aligning eye ([0005]; [0039]); MPEP 2144.07 Art recognized suitability for an intended purpose.
Claim 19 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 10 above.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujieda and Padula as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McMaster (US 20200258609 A1; 8/13/2020).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Fujieda and Padula does not teach reminding, by the processor, a patient to take a prescribed medication and schedule for postoperative visits. However, McMaster teaches in the same field of endeavor (Abstract; Fig. 2A) reminding, by the processor, a patient to take a prescribed medication and schedule for postoperative visits (Fig. 5B; [0065]-[0066]; [0070] “post-op”; [0074] “reminder”). Thus it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the teaching of Fujieda and Padula to include these features as taught by McMaster because this enables effective patient monitoring and surgical coordination ([0002]).
Regarding claim 12, in the combination of Fujieda, Padula, and McMaster, McMaster teaches wherein the reminder is performed via email, text, or mobile application (Fig. 1; Fig. 5B; [0061]-[0062]; [0065]-[0066]).
Allowable Subject Matter with respect to 102/103
Claims 5-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claims 5, 16 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the first feedback relates to instructing a patient to practice looking at fixation points to expose four quadrants of a sclera. Note that claims 16-17 have been rejected under 112 above.
The prior art of record does not disclose or fairly suggest either singly or in combination the claimed invention of claim 7 when taken as a whole, comprising, in addition to the other recited claim elements, wherein the first feedback is received via voice over IP (VOIP).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Grajales (US 20220354440 A1; Filed 5/4/2021) teaches artificial intelligence vision screening via telemedicine with infrared eye tracking (Abstract; Fig. 6-9; claim 10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan T Kuo whose telephone number is (408)918-7534. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 a.m. - 6 p.m. PT.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/JONATHAN T KUO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792