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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 6/1/2026. Currently claims 1-2 and 5-22 are pending with claims 13-21 are withdrawn based on a previous restriction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 8-10, filed 6/1/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 1-2 and 10-12 rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Su
claim(s) 3-5 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Rege
claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Rege in view of Razali
claim(s) 8 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Herekar
claim(s) 9 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Yates
claim(s)
have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous prior art rejections of claims 1-5, 7-12 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see pgs. 8-10 filed 6/1/2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of:
claim(s) 6 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view Rege in view of Roorda
Claim(s) 22 under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Herekar have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
While the grounds have changed to account for the claim amended language. Much of the rejection has stayed the same. Therefore, applicant’s arguments will be briefly addressed.
In particular with respect to claim 6. Applicant argues that because Su in view of Rege in view of Roorda discloses an axicon and spherical lens that are integrated and not separate, the prior art fails to disclose an axicon and a speherical lens as claimed. As applicant argues:
“However, Roorda does not disclose separate optical elements corresponding to the claimed axicon and spherical lens. Rather, Roorda explains that "the stationary axicon 5 could be integrated into a surface of a positive spherical lens." See, Roorda, p. 16, lines 15-20. Accordingly, Roorda teaches integrating the axicon into the spherical lens, thereby eliminating any distinction between the optical elements. This is opposed to the presently claimed subject matter, which recites an axicon configured to transform illumination light into an annular distribution and a separate spherical lens configured to modify the annular distribution to yield the annular illumination. Roorda therefore fails to teach or suggest the presently claimed arrangement.” [see pgs. 8-9 of applicant’s arguments received on 6/1/2026]
This argument is not persuasive, because the applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. In particular, applicant relies on additional limitation of the “axicon being separate from the spherical lens” however this feature is not currently claimed. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention.
In particular with respect to claim 22, applicant argues that claim 22 is allowable for similar reasons as claim 1. That reason being that the laser beam itself that is applied to the tissue has a speckle-pattern. As applicant argues:
“With respect to amended independent claims 1 and 22, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to teach or suggest "a laser source configured to provide illumination light as a laser beam with a speckle pattern," as presently recited in amended claim 1, and likewise fail to teach or suggest the corresponding speckle-patterned illumination recited in amended claim 22.
In particular, Su describes retinal illumination using a source shaped as a ring of light. See, e.g., Su [0038]-[0040]. However, Su does not disclose "a laser source configured to provide illumination light as a laser beam with a speckle pattern." Instead, the Office Action relies on Rege for the allegedly disclosed speckle-pattern features. See, Office Action, pp. 6-8.
However, Rege does not disclose a laser source configured to provide speckle-patterned illumination. Rather, Rege explains that laser speckle contrast imaging ("LSCI") involves imaging speckle patterns caused by laser light scattered by tissue and processing such imaged speckle patterns to assess movement of scattering particles. See, Rege [0043]. Rege further explains that the imaging optical assembly includes an aperture that results in production of a speckle pattern on the camera. See, Rege [0044]-[0046]. Accordingly, in Rege, the relied-upon speckle pattern is generated by tissue scattering and subsequently imaged and processed. This differs from the presently claimed recitation of, "a laser source configured to provide illumination light as a laser beam with a speckle pattern." Therefore, Rege fails to teach or suggest the presently claimed recitation.” [see pgs. 8-9 of applicant’s arguments received on 6/1/2026].
In response this argument is not persuasive because applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Regarding the limitation about the “speckle pattern”, claim 22 specifically recites the limitation “a laser source configured to provide illumination light with a speckle pattern and a plurality of annular optical elements configured to modify the illumination light to yield the annular illumination”. Specifically, this limitation under broadest reasonable interpretation only requires that the illumination light provided by the laser source have a speckle pattern. This is broader than claim 1’s limitation of “a laser source configured to provide illumination light as a laser beam with a speckle pattern”. As claim 1, ties the speckle pattern to the laser beam applied to the tissue, while claim 22 only requires the illumination light have a speckle pattern which could be from the laser or the resulting reflections/deflections as even after reflection/deflection the light is still illumination light. Thus, for claim 22, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with scope of claim 22 as claim 22’s speckle pattern limitation is broader than claim 1’s.
Thus, while the grounds have been amended to account for the change in limitation language, the grounds are very similar as before for claims 6 and 22 as outlined below.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su et al (EP 2898820 listed as Clarity Medical Systems as citation 9 under foreign patent documents in IDS received on 2/1/2023 and copy provided by applicant) hereafter known as Su in view of Rege et al (WO 2021183637 listed as Vasoptic Medical as citation 22 under foreign patent documents in IDS received on 2/1/2023 with copy provided by applicant) hereafter known as Rege in view of Roorda et al (WO 2007050743) hereafter known as Roorda.
Regarding claim 6:
Su discloses:
An ophthalmic system for visualizing an interior of an eye [see Fig. 1 and abstract… “A digital camera that combines the functions of the retinal camera and corneal camera into one, single small, easy to use instrument. The single camera can acquire digital images of a retinal region (9) of an eye, and digital images of a corneal region of the eye. The camera includes a first combination of optical elements for making the corneal digital images.”], comprising:
an illumination system configured to illuminate the interior of the eye [see Fig. 3 element 42 and para 40…. “a light emitting diode (LED) module 42 consists of multiple white color LEDs could be used to provide light for the source 28” ], the illumination system comprising an annular illuminator [see Fig. 2 element 28 and para 38… “Source 28 provides illumination for retinal imaging and can be pulsed or continues. The source 28 is shaped as a ring of light”] configured to direct annular illumination towards the interior of the eye [see para 32-33…. “The rear objective lens 13 when combined with the front objective lens 12 comprises the objective lens set for retinal imaging.”], the annular illumination having an illumination axis [A directed annular illumination implicitly has an axis of some type], the annular illuminator comprising:
a laser source configured to provide illumination [see Fig. 3 element 42 and para 40… “As shown in Fig. 3, a light emitting diode (LED) module 42 consists of multiple white color LEDs could be used to provide light for the source 28. Alternatively other light sources such as flashed Xenon and Halogen could be used. The light is coupled into the entrance of fiber optical cable 39 by a lens 40 after passing through an optical filter 41 to properly adjust the color temperature of the light.”]; and
a visualization system configured to provide an image of the interior of the eye, the visualization system comprising a plurality of visualization optical elements [see Fig. 1-2 elements 7, 12-13 and para 31… “Oculars 7 are provided for achieving all of the typical visual functions associated with the slit-lamp biomicroscope. Lens 12 is the front objective lens and seals the optical system.” And para 33… “The objective lens is comprised of lens ele-ments 12 and 13.”], the plurality of visualization optical elements comprising:
an objective lens configured to receive light reflected from the interior of the eye [see Fig. 2 elements 12-13 and para 33]; and
oculars configured to transmit the reflected light to yield an image of the
interior of the eye, the oculars having an ocular axis [see Fig. 1-2 element 7 and para 40].
However, Su fails to disclose “a plurality of annular optical elements configured to modify the illumination light to yield the annular illumination”. Also, Su fails to disclose “an axicon configured to transform the illumination light into an annular distribution of light; and” or “a spherical lens configured to modify the annular distribution of light to yield the annular illumination.” as recited by claim 6.
Rege discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmology [see para 3… “The subject technology relates to imaging regions of tissue. In particular, the subject technology relates to illuminating and acquiring images of a fundus of an eye.”] an ophthalmic imaging device that includes one or more lenses (i.e. a plurality of annular optical elements) that are configured to modify the illumination light to yield the annular illumination [see para 21… “The apparatus, embodied as an ophthalmic imaging device (called "OID" hereafter), may use coherent illumination that is generated by any type of laser source, and any type of camera to acquire image data.” And see para 36… “an OID can include one or more axicon lenses configured to shape a coherent light beam that focuses to an annular shape on the cornea and lens and then spreads to effect substantially uniform illumination of the fundus.”] including axicon lenses [see para 36… “an OID can include one or more axicon lenses configured to shape a coherent light beam that focuses to an annular shape on the cornea and lens and then spreads to effect substantially uniform illumination of the fundus.”] and speckle patterns [see para 43… “the OID may be configured for implementing laser speckle contrast imaging (LSCI) and producing "LSCI output data". LSCI refers to the imaging of speckle patterns caused by laser light scattered by the tissue, and the subsequent processing of these speckle patterns to assess blurring in the imaged speckle patterns to obtain information about movement of the scattering particles.”] and that the components of this device (understood to include the lenses or annual optical elements) are adjustable [see para 37… “The OID can be designed either as different embodiments that are customized for the application but employ the principles disclosed herein, or as a single embodiment that contains adjustable components providing for use in both humans and animals and for one or more diseases or conditions.”] for the purpose of allowing the device to use multiple illumination modalities thereby allowing the device to capture a number of different types of data in the form of different imaging data [see para 22… “Use of multiple illumination modalities permits the OID to capture one or more of reflectance images, absorption spectroscopic images, fluorescence images, and LSCI images with or without mydriatic agents.”]
Roorda discloses in the analogous art of illuminating optical systems [see pg. 1 lines 5-15… “The present disclosure relates to microscopy, specifically to an illuminating optical system that illuminates a sample using total internal reflection.”] that axicons used with spherical lenses are known optical elements used when addressing design factors such as optical aberrations or color corrections [see pg. 16 lines 15-20…. “Positive lenses 2 and 4 could be replaced by a single lens. The stationary axicon 5 could be integrated into a surface of a positive spherical lens. The design limiting factors are optical aberrations, color correction and space considerations.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Su by including a plurality adjustable annular optical elements including axicons and a configuration that provides light as a laser beam with a speckle pattern similarly to that disclosed by Rege for the purpose of allowing Su to capture a number of different types of data in the form of different imaging data.
Since Su in view of Rege is directed to using apparatus designs that address spherical aberrations, and Roorda discloses a spherical lens with an axicon is a known structures for correcting optical aberrations (i.e. includes spherical aberrations), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Su in view of Rege by including the additional use of a spherical lens with the axicon because this is a known structure used to treat a known problem of spherical aberrations.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was filed to modify Su in view of Rege in view of Roorda to achieve said claimed limitations of “an axicon configured to transform the illumination light into an annular distribution of light and “a spherical lens configured to modify the annular distribution of light to yield the annular illumination.” as recited by claim 6 because as explained previously Su in view of Rege in view of Roorda discloses axicons and spherical lenses are known elements for delivering the illumination light and discloses a need to address spherical aberrations in the design of the device; therefore, absent unpredictable results, one of ordinary skill would expect to achieve the claimed combination through routine experimentation through the application of known factors to achieve a known result when optimizing imaging.
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Su in view of Roorda in view of Razali et al (WO 2021006815) hereafter known as Razali.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 22:
Su discloses:
An ophthalmic system for visualizing an interior of an eye [see Fig. 1 and abstract… “A digital camera that combines the functions of the retinal camera and corneal camera into one, single small, easy to use instrument. The single camera can acquire digital images of a retinal region (9) of an eye, and digital images of a corneal region of the eye. The camera includes a first combination of optical elements for making the corneal digital images.”], comprising:
an illumination system configured to illuminate the interior of the eye [see Fig. 3 element 42 and para 40…. “a light emitting diode (LED) module 42 consists of multiple white color LEDs could be used to provide light for the source 28”], the illumination system comprising an annular illuminator [see Fig. 2 element 28 and para 38… “Source 28 provides illumination for retinal imaging and can be pulsed or continues. The source 28 is shaped as a ring of light”] configured to direct annular illumination towards the interior of the eye [see para 32-33…. “The rear objective lens 13 when combined with the front objective lens 12 comprises the objective lens set for retinal imaging.”], the annular illumination having an illumination axis [A directed annular illumination implicitly has an axis of some type];
a visualization system configured to provide an image of the interior of the eye, the visualization system [see Fig. 1-2 elements 3, 7, 12-13 and para 31… “Oculars 7 are provided for achieving all of the typical visual functions associated with the slit-lamp biomicroscope. Lens 12 is the front objective lens and seals the optical system.” And para 33… “The objective lens is comprised of lens ele-ments 12 and 13.” and para 29… “The slit lamp 3 provides illumination for examination of the cornea and is adjustable in brightness, color, and width of slit.”] comprising a slit lamp microscope [see Fig. 1-2 element 3 and para 29…“The slit lamp 3 provides illumination for examination of the cornea and is adjustable in brightness, color, and width of slit.”], the slit lamp microscope comprising a plurality of visualization optical elements [see Fig. 1-2 elements 7, 12-13 and para 31… “Oculars 7 are provided for achieving all of the typical visual functions associated with the slit-lamp biomicroscope. Lens 12 is the front objective lens and seals the optical system.” And para 33… “The objective lens is comprised of lens ele-ments 12 and 13.”], the plurality of visualization optical elements comprising:
an objective lens configured to receive light reflected from the interior of the eye [see Fig. 1-2 elements 12-13 and para 33]; and
oculars configured to transmit the reflected light to yield an image of the interior of the eye, the oculars having an ocular axis [see Fig. 1-2 element 7 and para 40]; and
a laser device configured to direct a treatment laser beam towards the interior of the eye [see Fig. 2 element 43A and paras 40 and 44… “Laser 43A is guided to port 43 by an optical fiber 43B and passes through one of the pinholes on the pinhole array 44 that has pinholes of various sizes.”],
the annular illuminator comprising:
a laser source configured to provide an illumination light [see Fig. 2 element 43A and paras 40 and 44… “Laser 43A is guided to port 43 by an optical fiber 43B and passes through one of the pinholes on the pinhole array 44 that has pinholes of various sizes.”]
However, Su fails to disclose “the optical elements comprising: a first axicon configured to transform the illumination light into an annular distribution of light, a second axicon or a spherical lens configured to modify the annular distribution of light to yield the annular illumination, and an achromatic lens configured to focus the annular illumination”
Roorda discloses in the analogous art of illuminating optical systems [see pg. 1 lines 5-15… “The present disclosure relates to microscopy, specifically to an illuminating optical system that illuminates a sample using total internal reflection.”] that axicons used with spherical lenses are known optical elements used when addressing design factors such as optical aberrations or color corrections [see pg. 16 lines 15-20…. “Positive lenses 2 and 4 could be replaced by a single lens. The stationary axicon 5 could be integrated into a surface of a positive spherical lens. The design limiting factors are optical aberrations, color correction and space considerations.”].
Razali discloses in the analogous art of ophthalmology [see abstract… “An automated slit lamp with computer program parts, comprising imaging optics, imaging optics control, microcontroller with microcomputer interface, first computer program module for automated movements and automatic image acquisition, lighting optics, lighting optics control, and second computer program module for eye screening”] that an achromatic lens is a known way to correct chromatic aberrations [see para 48… “The objective lens 302 may be achromatic in order to reduce chromatic aberrations as much as possible. The objective lens 302 may have a diameter ranging from 40 mm to 50 mm, and preferably the objective lens may have a diameter of 50 mm.”]
Since Su is directed to using apparatus designs that address spherical aberrations, and Roorda discloses a spherical lens with an axicon are known structures for correcting optical aberrations (i.e. includes spherical aberrations), it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Su by including the additional use of a spherical lens with the axicon because this is a known structure used to treat a known problem of spherical aberrations.
Since Su in view of Rooda is directed to reducing chromatic aberrations and Razli discloses a chromatic lens is a known element to reduce chromatic aberrations, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Su in view of Rooda to include the use of an achromatic lens similar to that disclosed by Razli to focus the annular illumination because this is a known structure that has a known effect in achieving Su in view of Rooda’s desired reduction in chromatic aberrations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-12 allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 1 is the broadest independent claim of this group of claims. Claim 1 recites an ophthalmic system for visualizing an interior of an eye. The closest prior art is Su in view of Rege. Su in view of Rege discloses the invention substantially as claimed as outlined in the non-final rejection mailed on 3/2/2026. However, Su in view of Rege fails to fully disclose “a laser source configured to provide illumination light as a laser beam with a speckle pattern” for similar reasons as stated on pg. 8-9 of applicant’s arguments mailed on 6/1/2026. Furthermore, nothing in the prior art when viewed with Su in view of Rege obviates this deficiency. It is important to note that the missing limitation by itself does not define the invention over the prior art, but rather it is the missing limitation in combination with all the claimed limitations together that defines the invention over the prior art. Therefore, the combination of claimed limitations of claim 1 is neither anticipated nor obviated in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights