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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 4, 7. 9 and 11-15 are amended, claims 3 is cancelled and claim 17 is new.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 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.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-8, 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. (US 20190125184 A1) (figs. 2 and 11A-D) in view of Tumlinson et al. (US 20180220888 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kramer discloses in at least figures 10-11D, a graphical user interface (GUI)
system (UI and display 1080 fig. 10) for an ophthalmic device (fundus camera 1010 fig. 10), comprising:
a first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A) whose size is indicative of a
predefined target axial position (center of the field of view V fig. 11A) for a pupil of an eye (the reference alignment pattern 1120 remains fixed at the center of the field of view V paragraph [0088] with a constant size figs. 11A-11D),
a second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) whose size is indicative of a current axial position of the pupil (the active alignment pattern 1110 moves and changes size with the axial position of the eye of the examinee relative to the camera paragraph [0088]),
wherein the size of the second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) relative to the
size of the first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A-D) is indicative of a determined axial displacement of the position of the pupil relative to the predefined target axial position (the size of the active alignment pattern 1110 indicates an axial displacement of the eye of the examinee relative to the fundus camera paragraph [0088] at the center of the field of view V fig. 11A),
wherein the size of the second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) is made equal to a target size (the active alignment pattern 1110 and the reference alignment pattern 1120 are the same size when both are at the center of the field of view V fig. 11D).
Kramer does not disclose, wherein the size of the second graphic is made equal to a target size in response to the current position of the pupil being within a predefined range of axial positions relative to the target axial position.
However Tumlinson discloses in at least figure 13, wherein the size of the second graphic (second graphic as shown below in fig. 13) is made equal to (the first and second graphics are the same size in panel 1306 as shown below in fig. 13) a target size (first graphic as shown below in fig. 13) in response to the current position of the pupil (the visual stimulus includes a representation of an actual eye position of the subject relative to an ideal alignment position indicator and a location containing the position coded alignment message overlaps with the subject's pupil paragraph [0019]) being within a predefined range of axial positions (alignment within an acceptable tolerance between the instrument pupils and the edge of the human iris paragraph [0059]) relative to the target axial position (the bottom panel 1306 shows the targets aligned within tolerance in both dimensions paragraph [0061]).
PNG
media_image1.png
485
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to match the size of the graphics when the pupil is in tolerance of positions as taught by Tumlinson in the graphical user interface of Kramer. Perfect alignment is unnecessary and any attempt to achieve perfect alignment may actually exhaust a subject and degrade performance. It is preferable to identify when alignment is good enough, or within an acceptable tolerance between the instrument pupils and the edge of the human iris (paragraph [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Kramer further discloses, wherein the size of the first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A-D) is fixed (the reference alignment pattern 1120 remains fixed at the center of the field of view V paragraph [0088] with a constant size figs. 11A-11D).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Kramer further discloses, wherein the target size (center of the field of view V fig. 11A) is substantially equal the size of the first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 is at the center of the field of view V for the examinee to move the camera to match the active alignment pattern in size and position paragraph [0089]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Kramer further discloses, wherein the size of the second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) is made larger than (the active alignment pattern 1110 is larger than the reference alignment 1120 pattern when it is further away figs. 11A and 11C) the size of the first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A-D) in response to the current position of the pupil being determined to be offset (the active alignment pattern 1110 appears larger when the eye of the examinee is too far from the fundus camera paragraph [0088]) from the target axial position (center of the field of view V fig. 11A).
Kramer does not explicitly disclose, along an axial direction toward the ophthalmic device.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the direction the size of the active alignment pattern 1110 changes, such that it becomes larger along an axial direction toward the ophthalmic device, since it has been held that a mere reversal of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda 104 USPQ400 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 5 and Kramer further discloses, wherein the size of the second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) is made smaller than (the active alignment pattern 1110 is smaller than the reference alignment 1120 pattern when it is closer fig. 11B) the size of the first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A-D) in response to the current position of the pupil being determined to be offset (the active alignment pattern 1110 appears smaller when the eye of the examinee is too close to the fund us camera paragraph [0088]) from the target axial position (center of the field of view V fig. 11A).
Kramer does not explicitly disclose, a long an axial direction away from ophthalmic device.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to reverse the direction the size of the active alignment pattern 1110 changes, such that it becomes smaller along an axial direction away from the ophthalmic device, since it has been held that a mere reversal of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Gazda 104 USPQ400
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Kramer further discloses, wherein the first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A) has a first color in response to the current axial position of the pupil being determined to be within the predefined range of axial positions (the color can be changed as well to indicate that the alignment is correct paragraph [0091], predefined range taught above by Tumlinson), and has a second color, different than the first color (color changes paragraph [0091]), in response the current axial position of the pupil being determined to not be within the predefined range of axial positions (colors can be used to indicate axial and/or lateral displacement paragraph [0088], predefined range taught above by Tumlinson).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Kramer further discloses, wherein a translational position (lateral positions of the eye paragraph [0087]), of the second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) on a display (display 1030 fig. 10 dynamically adjusts the visual alignment stimuli paragraph [0086]) is indicative of a current translational position of the pupil (the active alignment pattern 1110 is adjusted in real-time based on axial and lateral positions of the eye paragraph [0087]) on a plane normal to the axial direction (the field of view V creates a plane normal to the axial direction figs. 11A-d) and relative to a predefined reference position on the plane (the reference alignment pattern 1120 is the reference position to align the active alignment pattern 1110 in the center of the field of view V fig. 11D).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Kramer further discloses, wherein the second graphic is round (the active alignment pattern 1110 is round fig. 11A).
Kramer does not disclose the first graphic is round.
However it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the first graphic round, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because "It is appreciated that any pair of objects where one is static relative to the other can be used in the examples of FIGS. llA-11D" (paragraph [0091]).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and Kramer further discloses, wherein the size of second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) is adjusted to be closer to (the active alignment pattern 1110 becomes closer to the size of the alignment pattern 1120 as it becomes aligned fogs. 11A-D) size of the first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A-D) as the alignment of the device is adjusted to be closer to (the active alignment pattern 1110 and the reference alignment pattern 1120 overlapped or otherwise fitting together in a predetermined manner for alignment paragraph [0090]) the predefined target axial position (center of the field of view V fig. 11D).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kramer et al. (US 20190125184 A1) (figs. 2 and 11A-D) in view of Tumlinson et al. (US 20180220888 A1) as applied to claim 8 above in view of Rice-Jones et al. (US 20140022270 Al).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 8 and Kramer further discloses, in response the current axial position of the pupil being determined to be within the predefined positioning range but not within a predefined translational position (the control system is adapted to dynamically adjust a color of the active alignment pattern to visually indicate the axial displacement or the two-dimensional lateral shift of the eye of the examinee relative to the fund us camera paragraph [0143]).
Kramer does not explicitly disclose, wherein the second graphic has a first color in response to
the current position of the pupil in an x-y-z space being determined to match a predefined range of positions in the x-y-z space, and has a second color, different than the first color.
However Rice-Jones discloses in at least figure 8, wherein the second graphic (secondary
graphical objects rings 600,602, 604 and spot 608 fig. 8) has a first color (third color paragraph [0099]) in response to the current position of the pupil in an x-y-z space being determined to match a predefined a predefined range of positions in the x-y-z space (when the eye is in alignment in both the x and y plane and the z-axis, the entire set of secondary graphical objects, namely the spot 608 and the entire set of concentric rings 600, 602 and 604, will change to the third color green paragraph [0099], predefined range taught above by Tumlinson), and has a second color (fourth color red paragraph [0097]), different than the first color (third color green is different from the fourth color red paragraph [0097]), in response the current axial position of the pupil being determined to be within the predefined positioning range (shows an embodiment where the eye position is just right, in which case all of the rings 600,602, 604 are of a third color which in one embodiment may be green paragraph [0097]) but not within a predefined translational position (a color of the second graphical object 400 to be different depending on whether or not a patient's eye 102 is correctly aligned or not paragraph [0089]), a second color (fourth color red paragraph [0097]), different than the first color (third color green is different from the fourth color red paragraph [0097]).
Rice-Jones further teaches (paragraphs [0093] - [0095): "It is possible to combine an x and y measurement system with a z measurement system in a single graphical interface ...
a first graphical object 500 comprises a first element for representing an x, y plane position and
a second element for representing an ideal z position. Similarly the second graphical object 502
comprises a first element for representing the measured x, y position of the eye 102 and a second element for showing the actual measured z position of the eye 102. In the embodiment illustrated, the first graphical object 500 comprises a cross hair and a series of concentric rings, each according to the embodiments mentioned above, while the second graphical object 502 comprises a spot in combination with radially spaced rings in accordance with the embodiments mentioned above.
The same features mentioned above can be used in this embodiment, so an operator knows that a patient's eye 102 is in the correct position when both elements of the second graphical object are highlighted in a specific color, for example a green color".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the steps of changing the color of the graphic when alignment is achieved which can be incorporated into the colors of the alignment graphics being controlled in Kramer. One would have been motivated to perform the color changing step because Rice-Jones teaches that the x and y measurement graphic can be combined with the z measurement graphic using different colors to alert the operator if the patients eye is in the correct position (Rice-Jones paragraphs [0093] - [0095]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. (US 20190125184 Al) (figs. 2 and 11A-D) in view of Tumlinson et al. (US 20180220888 A1) as applied to claim 8 above and in further view of Ichikawa (US 20080212028 A1).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Kramer does not disclose, wherein the first graphic moves to continuously track the current position of the second graphic.
However Ichikawa discloses in at least figures 3A-3B, wherein the first graphic (alignment mark A1 fig. 3A-3B) moves to continuously track the current position (the alignment mark Al is the center position of the alignment target images Ma to Mh paragraph [0031]) of the second graphic (alignment target images Ma to Mh fig. 3A-3B).
Ichikawa further teaches (paragraph [0033]): "The photographing unit 3 is further moved in the X- and V-directions so that the alignment mark Al is displayed within the reticle mark LT (see FIG. 3B). In addition, it is checked whether or not the pupil diameter of the eye E is bigger than the circular mark P indicating the minimum pupil diameter.
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have two alignment graphics move together as taught by Ichikawa in the fundus camera interface of Kramer. One would have been motivated use two moving alignment graphics because Ichikawa teaches that the alignment position and the size of the pupil can be determined for
alignment (Ichikawa paragraphs [0033]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Kramer, Tumlinson and Ichikawa discloses all the limitations of claim 10.
Kramer does not disclose, wherein the center of the first graphic is maintained aligned with the center of the second graphic, whereby the first graphic and the second graphic move in tandem on the display.
However Ichikawa further discloses, wherein the center of the first graphic (alignment mark Al fig. 3A-3B) is maintained aligned (the alignment mark Al is the center position of the alignment target images Ma to Mh paragraph [0031]) of the second graphic (alignment target images Ma to Mh fig. 3A- 3B) with the center of the second graphic (alignment target images Ma to Mh fig. 3A-3B), whereby the first graphic and the second graphic move in tandem on the display (the alignment mark Al and the alignment images Ma to Mh move together to the reticle LT to achieve alignment paragraph [0032]).
Ichikawa further teaches (paragraph [0033]): "The photographing unit 3 is further moved in the X- and V-directions so that the alignment mark Al is displayed within the reticle mark LT (see FIG. 3B). In addition, it is checked whether or not the pupil diameter of the eye E is bigger than the circular mark P indicating the minimum pupil diameter.
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have two alignment graphics move together as taught by Ichikawa in the fundus camera interface of Kramer. One would have been motivated use two moving alignment graphics because Ichikawa teaches that the alignment position and the size of the pupil can be determined for alignment (Ichikawa paragraphs [0033]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. (US 20190125184 Al) (figs. 2 and 11A-D) in view of Tumlinson et al. (US 20180220888 A1) as applied to claim 12 above and in view of Kramer et al. (US20190125184 Al) (figs. 15-16B).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Kramer and Tumlinson discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
Kramer does not explicitly disclose in figures 11A-D, wherein the first graphic has a transparent
interior and the second graphic has an opaque interior.
However Kramer further discloses in figures 16A-B, wherein the first graphic (static object 1620 figs. 16A-B) has a transparent interior (static object 1620 is transparent figs. 16A-B) and the second graphic (active object 1610 figs. 16A-B) has an opaque interior (active object 1610 is opaque figs. 16A-B).
Kramer further teaches (paragraphs [0105]-[0106]): "Fundus camera 1510 can achieve precise
3D alignment of imaging eye's 1005 pupil with respect to the eye box of the camera using a stereo display projected to both eyes ...
the left and right displays include two image objects: one static object 1620 and one active object 1610 which moves with the position of the examinee's imaging eye. Based on binocular disparity, each display (left and right) will be rendered to show the static object 1620 at a fixed point in virtual 3D space while the active object 1610 moves in virtual 3D space with the measured 3D position of the imaging eye 1005. When the imaging eye 1005 is aligned to the eye box of the camera, the objects are displayed on the same pixel position of the display screen and the examinee perceive the virtual objects
in the same position on the virtual 3D space ...
the 3D display scheme provides a more immersive self-imaging experience than monocular
alignment scheme".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to use an opaque alignment graphic as taught by Kramer fig. 16A-B which allows for 3d alignment to occur with the display of Kramer fig. 11A-D. One would have been motivated to perform this type of alignment because Kramer teaches that the 3D display scheme provides a more immersive self-imaging experience than monocular alignment scheme. (Lin paragraphs [0105]-[0107]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. (US 20190125184 A1) (figs. 2 and 11A-D) in view of Tumlinson et al. (US 20180220888 A1), Kramer et al. (US20190125184 Al) (figs. 15-16B) and Rice-Jones et al. (US 20140022270 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Kramer discloses in at least figures 10-lld, a graphical user interface (GUI)
system (UI and display 1080 fig. 10) for an ophthalmic device (fundus camera 1010 fig. 10), comprising:
a first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A) whose size is indicative of a
predefined target axial position (center of the field of view V fig. 11A) for a pupil of an eye (the reference
alignment pattern 1120 remains fixed at the center of the field of view V paragraph [0088] with a
constant size figs. 11A-11D),
a second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) whose size is indicative of a current
axial position of the pupil (the active alignment pattern 1110 moves and changes size with the axial position of the eye of the examinee relative to the camera paragraph [0088]),
wherein the size of the second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) relative to the
size of the first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A-D) is indicative of a determined axial displacement of the position of the pupil relative to the predefined target axial position (the size of the active alignment pattern 1110 indicates an axial displacement of the eye of the examinee relative to the fundus camera paragraph [0088] at the center of the field of view V fig. 11A).
Kramer figs. 16A-B does not explicitly disclose, the second graphic is spherical;
the portion in the axial direction of the spherical second graphic that is within the predefined range of axial positions is displayed with a first color; and
the portion in the axial direction of the spherical second graphic that is not within the predefined range of axial positions is displayed with a second color different than the first color.
However Tumlinson discloses in at least figure 13, a predefined range of axial positions (alignment within an acceptable tolerance between the instrument pupils and the edge of the human iris paragraph [0059]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to match the size of the graphics when the pupil is in tolerance of positions as taught by Tumlinson in the graphical user interface of Kramer. Perfect alignment is unnecessary and any attempt to achieve perfect alignment may actually exhaust a subject and degrade performance. It is preferable to identify when alignment is good enough, or within an acceptable tolerance between the instrument pupils and the edge of the human iris (paragraph [0059]).
Additionally Kramer figs. 16A-B discloses all the limitations of claim 13 and figs. 16A-B further discloses a 3D alignment with cube shape indicators.
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the second graphic spherical, since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669,149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), MPEP §2144.04(IV)(B). In the instant case, the change in shape does not appear to be significant to the function because a sphere can be "displayed on the same pixel position of the display screen and the examinee perceive the virtual objects in the same position on the virtual 3D space" (paragraph [0106]).
Further Rice-Jones discloses in at least figure 6, the portion in the axial direction of the spherical second graphic (secondary graphical objects rings 600, 602, 604 and spot 608 fig. 6) that is within the predefined range of axial positions (the eye has moved closer to the alignment position and the rings 600 and 602 are a second color paragraph [0097], predefined range taught above by Tumlinson) is displayed with a first color (second color paragraph [0097]) the portion in the axial direction of the second spherical graphic (secondary graphical objects rings 600,602,604 and spot 608 fig. 8) that is not within the predefined range of axial positions (the ring 604 remains the first color where the eye is not close enough paragraph [0097], predefined range taught above by Tumlinson) is displayed with a second color (first color paragraph [0097]) different than the first color (second color paragraph [0097]).
Rice-Jones further teaches (paragraphs [0096): "It is possible as an alternative to provide embodiments where the ideal position marking is the outmost or innermost ring from a set of concentric rings. In that embodiment, the other concentric rings can be used to indicate when the eye is too far away, and if the eye is too close, then the ideal position marking can change color.".
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the steps of changing the color of the graphic when alignment is achieved which can be incorporated into the colors of the alignment graphics being controlled in Kramer. One would have been motivated to perform this color changing step because Rice-Jones teaches that different colors can be used to indicate when the eye is too far away, and if the eye is too close, then the ideal position marking can change color. (Rice-Jones paragraph [0096]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. (US 20190125184 A1) (figs. 2 and 11A-D) in view of in view of Tumlinson et al. (US 20180220888 A1), Kramer et al. (US20190125184 Al) (figs. 15-16B) and Rice-Jones et al. (US 20140022270 A1) as applied to claim 14 above and in further view of Znamenskiy {US 9947112 B2) .
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Kramer figs. 2 and 11A-D, Kramer figs. 16A-B and Rice Jones discloses all the limitations of claim 14.
Kramer figs. 2 and 11A-D does not disclose, wherein the second color includes being of a different brightness than the first color.
However Zhamenskiy discloses in at least figure 3a. the portion of the second graphic is displayed brighter than another portion of the second graphic (as an option, the superposition unit 22 may apply different brightness levels and/or colors to the static main pattern 26 and to the derivative pattern 32 col. 10 lines 19-21).
The combination of Kramer and Rice-Jones discloses the claimed invention except that different colors are used to indicate alignment instead of a brighter region. Znamenskiy shows that different brightness levels can be used instead of different colors as an equivalent structure in the art. Therefore, because different brightness and colors were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to substitute different brightness instead of different colors, and the results thereof would have been predictable. See MPEP §2144.06 and 2143 (l)(B).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kramer et al. (US 20190125184 A1) (figs. 2 and 11A-D) in view of Walsh (WO 2010117386 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Kramer discloses in at least figures 10-11D, a graphical user interface (GUI) system (UI and display 1080 fig. 10) for an ophthalmic device (fundus camera 1010 fig. 10), comprising:
a first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A) whose size is indicative of a
predefined target axial position (center of the field of view V fig. 11A) for a pupil of an eye (the reference alignment pattern 1120 remains fixed at the center of the field of view V paragraph [0088] with a constant size figs. 11A-11D),
a second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) whose size is indicative of a current axial position of the pupil (the active alignment pattern 1110 moves and changes size with the axial position of the eye of the examinee relative to the camera paragraph [0088]),
wherein the size of the second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D) relative to the size of the first graphic (reference alignment pattern 1120 fig. 11A-D) is indicative of a determined axial displacement of the position of the pupil relative to the predefined target axial position (the size of the active alignment pattern 1110 indicates an axial displacement of the eye of the examinee relative to the fundus camera paragraph [0088] at the center of the field of view V fig. 11A),
the size (the size of the active alignment pattern 1110 indicates an axial displacement of the eye of the examinee relative to the fundus camera paragraph [0088] at the center of the field of view V fig. 11A) of the second graphic (active alignment pattern 1110 fig. 11A-D)
Kramer does not disclose, the size of the second graphic is maintained constant during tremor movement of the pupil.
However Walsh discloses in at least figure 45, the size of the second graphic (transient objects 4502 fig. 45) is maintained constant (the OCT-based ophthalmic testing center system can be configured to vary the size/frequency of the targets to provide more detailed information about the acuity paragraph [0433] while vibration or movement of the eye is accounted for paragraph [0144]) during tremor movement of the pupil (subsequent image analysis may be performed to account for vibration or movement of the users eyes paragraph [0144]).
Therefore it would be obvious for one skilled in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to account for eye vibrations as taught by Walsh in the GUI system of Kramer. The positions of tissue features identified from non-interferometric light reflected from the subject's eye are tracked to determine the movement of the subject's eye which can then be compensated for by modifying the galvanometer movements to correct for underlying eye movements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhou et al. (US 20140063455 A1) discloses a wavefront sensor with a range of axial positions for the eye.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW R WRIGHT whose telephone number is (703)756-5822. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 7:30-5 Friday 8-12.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 1-571-270-1284. 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.
/ANDREW R WRIGHT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights