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 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.
No claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
in claim 1, line 5: “an eye” should be “the eye”; and
in claim 1, line 17: “IOP and/or” should be “the IOP and/or”.
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 1-3, 5-7, and 16-17 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.
Claim 1 recites “reflected energy” in line 11, but it is not clear if this limitation is the same as, related to, or different from the “wave energy to be…reflected by solitons in an eye” of claim 1, lines 4-5. If they are the same, “reflected energy” of claim 1, line 11 should be “the reflected wave energy”. If they are different, the relationship among these recitations should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements).
Claims 2-3 and 5-7 are rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 1.
Claim 16 recites “the intraocular pressure” in line 1 in which there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites “the cornea eye surface” in line 10, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “a cornea surface of the eye” of claim 16, line 7. If they are the same, “the cornea eye surface” in line 10 should be “the cornea surface”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). Also, if they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the cornea eye surface” in claim 16.
Claim 16 recites “the Smith Chart display formatted IOP data” in lines 13-14, but it is not clear if this recitation is the same as, related to, or different from “IOP data in a Smith Chart format” of claim 16, lines 11-12. If they are the same, “the Smith Chart display formatted IOP data” in lines 13-14 should be “the Smith Chart formatted IOP data”. If they are different, their relationship should be made clear and they should be clearly distinguished from each other (e.g., when multiple elements have similar or the same labels, distinct identifiers such as “first” and “second” should be used to clearly differentiate the elements). Also, if they are different, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the Smith Chart display formatted IOP data” in claim 16.
Claim 17 is rejected by virtue of their dependence from claim 16.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2020/176857 (Bteich)(previously cited), in view of GB 2428093 (Hancock)(previously cited), and further in view of DE 3637549 (Rosenberger)(previously cited). Citations to Rosenberger will refer to the machine English translation that accompanied the Office Action mailed on 9/8/2025.
Bteich teaches that the sensor has microwave circuity (paragraph 089 and claims 1-3 of Bteich) to measure the resultant reflected wave energy from a surface of the eye (the sensor detects the microwave spectra in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor (paragraphs 082 and 089 of Bteich) and to convert the reflected wave energy into a Smith Chart impedance data format (the use of the VNA to determine a Smith Chart; paragraphs 0108 and 0159 of Bteich).
Bteich teaches that an energy source may be used (paragraph 0159 and claim 1 of Bteich). Hancock teaches that a VNA can be used as such a source and detector (pages 25-26 and 52 of Hancock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the VNA of Bteich as the microwave power source of the combination since Bteich teaches an energy source may be used and Hancock teaches one such source without adding additional components to the system.
Hancock teaches that microwave circuitry includes a dipole antenna arrangement to transmit and receive microwave spectra (abstract and pages 8-9 and 50 of Hancock). Further, Hancock teaches the use of coaxial cables to connect antennae to the generating and measuring instruments (page 21 of Hancock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the dipole antenna arrangement and the coaxial cables of Hancock in the system of Bteich since it allows the device to effectively transmit and detect the microwave spectra while being connected to the generating and measuring instruments.
Bteich teaches that the sensor detects the microwave spectra in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor for the detection of markers and concentration information (paragraphs 082 and 089 of Bteich). Markers includes biological markers (paragraphs 081-087 of Bteich) including bone fracture healing, heart rates, blood pressure, cardiac activity, and material/liquid characterizations (paragraphs 0107, 0157, and 0192 of Bteich). From the teaching that blood pressure is considered to be a biological marker, specifically paragraphs 0107, 0157, and 0192 of Bteich, Bteich is conveying that the pressures in fluids are indeed markers. Bteich teaches that another fluid that can be examined is the aqueous and/or vitreous humor (paragraph 082 of Bteich). Rosenberger teaches that intraocular pressure based on microwave spectra is one such marker (Abstract and Description sections of Rosenberger). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the determination of intraocular pressure, as suggested by Rosenberger, using the method and system of Bteich since Bteich teaches that markers, such as pressure in a fluid, may be detected and Rosenberger teaches one such pressure marker in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor, which are fluids suggested by Bteich.
With respect to claim 1, the combination teaches or suggests a mobile hand-held radar system to measure intraocular pressure (IOP) of an eye and to assess eye diseases and indicators of brain diseases, the hand-held radar system comprising:
an electromagnetic power source (the VNA of the combination is the power source; paragraphs 082, 089, and 0159 and claims 1-3 of Bteich) configured to generate wave energy to be absorbed in the eye and reflected by solitons in an eye which are created by the absorbed energy (the absorption and actual reflections by solitons is not part of the claimed system since it is only an effect of the system’s operations), to measure the reflected wave energy from a surface of the eye (the VNA of the combination detects the microwave spectra in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor; paragraphs 082 and 089 of Bteich), and to convert the reflected wave energy into IOP data in a Smith Chart impedance data format to correlate for measurement of the IOP of the eye and/or assess and treat the eye and brain diseases (the use of the VNA to determine a Smith Chart; paragraphs 0108 and 0159 of Bteich; the determination of IOP of Rosenberger);
a radar antenna (the dipole antenna arrangement of Hancock), via radiating the wave energy generated by the electromagnetic power source, to create the solitons which are concentrations of electromagnetic energy in a part of the eye and to simultaneously receive reflected energy back from the eye (the creation of the solitons is not part of the claimed system since it is only an effect of the system’s operations);
a miniature coaxial cable (the coaxial cables of Hancock) connected between the electromagnetic power source and the radar antenna to convey a signal voltage indicative of the reflected wave energy therebetween; and
an on-board computer processor (paragraphs 0201-0207 of Bteich) to store, transmit and analyze the Smith Chart formatted IOP data for the measurement of IOP (the determination of intraocular pressure, as suggested by Rosenberger, using the method and system of Bteich ) and/or assessing the eye and brain diseases.
With respect to claim 2, the combination teaches or suggests that the electromagnetic power source is a microwave source (the VNA of the combination is the power source; paragraphs 082, 089, and 0159 and claims 1-3 of Bteich).
With respect to claim 3, the combination teaches or suggests that the radar antenna is a miniature dipole radar antenna (the dipole antenna arrangement of Hancock).
With respect to claim 5, Bteich teaches the use of the VNA to determine a Smith Chart (paragraphs 0108 and 0159 of Bteich). Hancock teaches the use of a PDA or mobile phone as a computing and output device (page 18 of Hancock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a PDA or mobile phone of Hancock in conjunction with the VNA of Bteich so as to provide a portable display for the output. Thus, the combination teaches or suggest a mobile display device (the PDA or mobile phone of Hancock) comprising software configured to display the transmitted Smith Chart formatted IOP data.
With respect to claim 6, Bteich teaches that the sensor may be placed on the human body (paragraph 0141 of Bteich) and that the location may involve the aqueous and vitreous humors (paragraph 082 of Bteich) but provide no other specifics of location which suggests that it is subject to change. The location of the sensor would depend upon the factors of accuracy and clarity of readings. As such, the location of the sensor is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the factors of accuracy and clarity of readings. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the location of the sensor so as to obtain the desired accuracy and clarity of readings. Thus, the combination teaches or suggests that the radar antenna is configured to be positioned at approximately 1 mm away from the surface of the eye.
With respect to claim 7, the combination teaches or suggests that the electromagnetic power source is a vector network analyzer (VNA) (the VNA of the combination is the power source; paragraphs 082, 089, and 0159 and claims 1-3 of Bteich).
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bteich, in view of Hancock, and further in view of Rosenberger, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0045663 (Palikaras). Citations to Rosenberger will refer to the machine English translation that accompanied the Office Action mailed on 9/8/2025.
Bteich teaches that the sensor has microwave circuity (paragraph 089 and claims 1-3 of Bteich) to measure the resultant reflected wave energy from a surface of the eye (the sensor detects the microwave spectra in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor (paragraphs 082 and 089 of Bteich) and to convert the reflected wave energy into a Smith Chart impedance data format (the use of the VNA to determine a Smith Chart; paragraphs 0108 and 0159 of Bteich).
Bteich teaches that an energy source may be used (paragraph 0159 and claim 1 of Bteich). Hancock teaches that a VNA can be used as such a source and detector (pages 25-26 and 52 of Hancock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the VNA of Bteich as the microwave power source of the combination since Bteich teaches an energy source may be used and Hancock teaches one such source without adding additional components to the system.
Hancock teaches that microwave circuitry includes a dipole antenna arrangement to transmit and receive microwave spectra (abstract and pages 8-9 and 50 of Hancock). Further, Hancock teaches the use of coaxial cables to connect antennae to the generating and measuring instruments (page 21 of Hancock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the dipole antenna arrangement and the coaxial cables of Hancock in the system of Bteich since it allows the device to effectively transmit and detect the microwave spectra while being connected to the generating and measuring instruments.
Bteich teaches that the sensor detects the microwave spectra in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor for the detection of markers and concentration information (paragraphs 082 and 089 of Bteich). Markers includes biological markers (paragraphs 081-087 of Bteich) including bone fracture healing, heart rates, blood pressure, cardiac activity, and material/liquid characterizations (paragraphs 0107, 0157, and 0192 of Bteich). From the teaching that blood pressure is considered to be a biological marker, specifically paragraphs 0107, 0157, and 0192 of Bteich, Bteich is conveying that the pressures in fluids are indeed markers. Bteich teaches that another fluid that can be examined is the aqueous and/or vitreous humor (paragraph 082 of Bteich). Rosenberger teaches that intraocular pressure based on microwave spectra is one such marker (Abstract and Description sections of Rosenberger). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the determination of intraocular pressure, as suggested by Rosenberger, using the method and system of Bteich since Bteich teaches that markers, such as pressure in a fluid, may be detected and Rosenberger teaches one such pressure marker in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor, which are fluids suggested by Bteich.
Bteich teaches the use of microwaves in the examination of the eye (paragraph 082 and 089 and claims 1-3 of Bteich). Palikaras teaches, for microwaves applications for the eye the frequency of interested lies between 0.1 to 20 GHz (paragraphs 0049 and 0089 of Palikaras).1 This teaching suggests that the frequency, and hence the wavelength, of the microwave energy is subject to change. The frequency/wavelength would depend upon the factors of accuracy, readability, and safety. As such, the frequency/wavelength of the microwave energy is a results-effective variable that would have been optimized through routine experimentation based on the factors of accuracy, readability, and safety. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the frequency/wavelength of the microwave energy so as to obtain the desired of accuracy, readability, and safety. As such, the features of “a predetermined frequency of electromagnetic wave energy generated by the VNA” of claim 16 and “the predetermined frequency’s 1/2 wavelength measure is approximately equal to an axial eye length (AEL) of the eye” of claim 17 would have been obvious.
Bteich teaches the use of the VNA to determine a Smith Chart (paragraphs 0108 and 0159 of Bteich). Hancock teaches the use of a PDA or mobile phone as a computing and output device (page 18 of Hancock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a PDA or mobile phone of Hancock in conjunction with the VNA of Bteich so as to provide a portable display for the output. Thus, the combination teaches or suggest a mobile display device (the PDA or mobile phone of Hancock) comprising software configured to display the transmitted Smith Chart formatted IOP data.
With respect to claim 16, the combination teaches or suggests that a mobile hand-held radar system to measure the intraocular pressure (IOP) of an eye, comprising:
a vector network analyzer (the VNA of the combination is the power source; paragraphs 082, 089, and 0159 and claims 1-3 of Bteich);
a radar antenna (the dipole antenna arrangement of Hancock) connected to the VNA via a coaxial cable (the coaxial cables of Hancock); and
a computer processor (paragraphs 0201-0207 of Bteich);
wherein the radar antenna is configured to generate resonance in the eye volume via radiating through a cornea surface of the eye at a predetermined frequency (see the above optimization rationale regarding the predetermined frequency of the frequency/wavelength of the microwave energy) of electromagnetic wave energy generated by the VNA (the dipole antenna arrangement of Hancock is cable of such radiating);
wherein the radar antenna is further configured to receive a reflected energy wave from the cornea eye surface and transmit as a signal voltage to the VNA (the dipole antenna arrangement of Hancock is cable of such reception and transmission);
wherein the VNA is configured to measure the signal voltage to generate IOP data in a Smith Chart format to transmit to the computer processor (the VNA of the combination measures the microwave spectra in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor and generates a Smith Chart; paragraphs 082, 089, 0108, and 0159 of Bteich); and
wherein the computer processor is configured to store and transmit the Smith Chart display formatted IOP data to an external display device (the storage of paragraphs 0201-0207 of Bteich and the transmission to the PDA or mobile phone of Hancock).
With respect to claim 17, the combination teaches or suggests that the predetermined frequency’s 1/2 wavelength measure is approximately equal to an axial eye length (AEL) of the eye (see the above optimization rationale regarding the a predetermined frequency of the frequency/wavelength of the microwave energy).
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments filed on 2/6/2026 have been fully considered.
Drawing objections
In view of the amendments to the drawings filed on 2/6/2026, the drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Claim warning
In view of the claim amendments filed on 2/6/2026, the claim warning has been withdrawn.
Claim objection
The Applicant did not address, by argument or amendment, the objection with respect to “an eye” in claim 1, line 5. The Examiner cannot find a reason to withdraw the claim objection.
The Applicant did not address, by argument or amendment, the objection with respect to “IOP” in claim 1, line 17 in the expression “IOP and/or”. The Examiner cannot find a reason to withdraw the claim objection.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph
In view of the claim amendments filed on 2/26/2026, the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph
The Applicant did not address, by argument or amendment, the rejection with respect to “reflected energy” in claim 1, line 11. The Examiner cannot find a reason to withdraw the claim objection.
There are new grounds of claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 2/26/2026.
Prior art rejection
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-7 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. That is, there are new grounds of rejections that were necessitated by the claim amendments filed on 2/26/2026.
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image1.png
423
1088
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive. Bteich teaches that the sensor detects the microwave spectra in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor for the detection of markers and concentration information (paragraphs 082 and 089 of Bteich). Markers includes biological markers (paragraphs 081-087 of Bteich) including bone fracture healing, heart rates, blood pressure, cardiac activity, and material/liquid characterizations (paragraphs 0107, 0157, and 0192 of Bteich). From the teaching that blood pressure is considered to be a biological marker, specifically paragraphs 0107, 0157, and 0192 of Bteich, Bteich is conveying that the pressures in fluids are indeed markers. Bteich teaches that another fluid that can be examined is the aqueous and/or vitreous humor (paragraph 082 of Bteich). Rosenberger teaches that intraocular pressure based on microwave spectra is one such marker (Abstract and Description sections of Rosenberger). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the determination of intraocular pressure, as suggested by Rosenberger, using the method and system of Bteich since Bteich teaches that markers, such as pressure in a fluid, may be detected and Rosenberger teaches one such marker in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor, which are fluids suggested by Bteich. Thus, the rejection is based on the combination of Bteich, Hancock, and Rosenberger. 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).
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image2.png
184
1085
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
140
1109
media_image3.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive. This is simply one embodiment of Bteich and one arguably incompatible embodiment does not negate the entire teachings of Bteich. This is especially true since the rejection is based on a different kind of embodiment that includes detecting biomarkers in aqueous and/or vitreous humors.
Also, the Applicant’s statement does not explain why this embodiment of Bteich is not compatible with the proposed combination. How is this embodiment fatally flawed that it cannot be used to detect IOP pressures?
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image4.png
198
1147
media_image4.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive since it does not consider the combination of Bteich, Hancock, and Rosenberger. As previously mentioned, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the determination of intraocular pressure, as suggested by Rosenberger, using the method and system of Bteich since Bteich teaches that markers, such as pressure in a fluid, may be detected and Rosenberger teaches one such marker in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor, which are fluids suggested by Bteich. Thus, the rejection is based on the combination of Bteich, Hancock, and Rosenberger.
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image5.png
529
1097
media_image5.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive since it does not consider the combination of Bteich, Hancock, and Rosenberger. Bteich teaches that an energy source may be used (paragraph 0159 and claim 1 of Bteich). Hancock teaches that a VNA can be used as such a source and detector (pages 25-26 and 52 of Hancock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the VNA of Bteich as the microwave power source of the combination since Bteich teaches an energy source may be used and Hancock teaches one such source without adding additional components to the system.
Hancock teaches that microwave circuitry includes a dipole antenna arrangement to transmit and receive microwave spectra (abstract and pages 8-9 and 50 of Hancock). Further, Hancock teaches the use of coaxial cables to connect antennae to the generating and measuring instruments (page 21 of Hancock). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the dipole antenna arrangement and the coaxial cables of Hancock in the system of Bteich since it allows the device to effectively transmit and detect the microwave spectra while being connected to the generating and measuring instruments.
Also, as previously mentioned, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the determination of intraocular pressure, as suggested by Rosenberger, using the method and system of Bteich since Bteich teaches that markers, such as pressure in a fluid, may be detected and Rosenberger teaches one such marker in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor, which are fluids suggested by Bteich.
The Applicant asserts:
PNG
media_image6.png
201
1103
media_image6.png
Greyscale
This argument is not persuasive since it does not consider the combination of Bteich, Hancock, and Rosenberger. As previously mentioned, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the determination of intraocular pressure, as suggested by Rosenberger, using the method and system of Bteich since Bteich teaches that markers, such as pressure in a fluid, may be detected and Rosenberger teaches one such marker in the aqueous and/or vitreous humor, which are fluids suggested by Bteich.
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 MATTHEW KREMER whose telephone number is (571)270-3394. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 am to 6 pm; every other Friday off.
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.
/MATTHEW KREMER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
1 Bteich mere teaching of microwaves, by itself, suggests wavelengths in the range from one meter to one millimeter and frequencies between 300 MHz (101 cm) and 300 GHz (0.1 cm)(paragraph 0047 of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0313937 (Fhager).