DETAILED ACTION
The Applicant’s filing, received 16 May 2023, has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-35 are pending.
Claims 16-35 are rejected.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
This application is a 371 of PCT/EP2021/079470, filed 05 November 2021
which claims benefit of foreign application EUROPEAN PATENT OFFICE (EPO) 20207868.9, filed 16 November 2020.
Thus, unless otherwise noted, the effective filing date of the claimed invention is 16 November 2020.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) received 08 June 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
As noted on the IDS received 08 June 2023, the Messner reference was not considered because a copy of the document was not provided with the IDS.
The listing of references in the specification (e.g., at least at page 2, lines 7-8) is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings received 16 May 2023 are not accepted, and are objected to as noted below.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “11” has been used to designate both a “first measurement simulator” (page 25, line 10) and a “lens model estimator” (page 24, line 24) in the specification. In view of the figures, it appears that ‘first measurement simulator’ should be designated as “122” (see figure 7, provided below).
PNG
media_image1.png
323
497
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
The Abstract contains multiple reference characters in parentheses that are referencing the drawings. The sheet of the Abstract also contains “FIG 5” below the statement. These reference characters should be deleted. Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus or process should not be included in the abstract.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are:
a processing means, to perform the steps of the method, in claims 32 and 33; and
a receiving means for receiving, in claim 34.
Claim limitations that use a generic placeholder are:
a lens model estimator for determining, in claim 34;
a measurement simulator determining, in claim 34;
a combiner for determining, in claim 34; and
a lens measurer configured to measure, in claim 35.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses a corresponding structure for the “means” and the “generic placeholders”:
a processing means, to perform the steps of the method, in claims 32 and 33, at page 23, lines 21-26 (e.g., a standard computer, a special chip, or server connected over the Internet, etc.);
a receiving means for receiving, in claim 34, at page 24, lines 14-23 (e.g., a cable or a wireless communication interface);
a lens model estimator for determining, in claim 34, at page 23, lines 21-26 (i.e., hardware, e.g., a standard computer, a special chip, or server connected over the Internet, etc.); and at page 24, lines 24-27 (i.e., software, e.g., configured to perform the step of S1);
a measurement simulator determining, in claim 34, at page 23, lines 21-26 (i.e., hardware, e.g., a standard computer, a special chip, or server connected over the Internet, etc.); and at page 24, lines 28-31 (i.e., software, e.g., configured to perform the step of S2);
a combiner for determining, in claim 34, at page 23, lines 21-26 (i.e., hardware, e.g., a standard computer, a special chip, or server connected over the Internet, etc.); and at page 25, lines 16-19 (i.e., software, e.g., configured to perform the step of S3); and
a lens measurer configured to measure, in claim 35, at page 10, lines 22-30 (i.e., hardware, e.g., a lens mapper).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 17, 19, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 33, and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: The formatting of the lines appear to be inconsistent with respect to the spacing between words, making reading difficult.
Claim 16 is further objected to because of the following informalities: In line 11, the words “characterized in” do not appear to belong in the claim, because they do not make grammatical sense with respect to the subsequent language recited in line 12.
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities: The word “Illuminating” in line two should not be capitalized.
Claim 34 is further objected to because of the following informalities: The word “for” should be inserted between the word “simulator” and the word “determining” in line six.
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: A comma should be inserted between the word “lens” and the word “the” in line two.
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 16-33 and 35 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 16 recites the limitation "the third one" in line eighteen. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 17-25 are indefinite for depending from claim 16 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 16. Claim 32 is indefinite for reciting the limitations according to claim 16.
Claim 22 is indefinite for reciting “estimating the digital lens model based on…” because claim 16 previously recites “determining… a digital lens model” and therefore it is not clear as to whether the terms “determining” and “estimating” are synonymous. One of skill in the art would recognize that the two terms can have different meanings in certain contexts, e.g., the term “estimating” can mean to make an educated guess or rough calculation, whereas the term “determining” can mean to find out a precise calculation.
Claim 23 is indefinite for reciting “wherein the digital lens model is determined/estimated” because claim 16 only recites “determining… a digital lens model.” As discussed above, the terms ‘determined’ and ‘estimated’ can have different meanings to a person of skill in the art.
Claim 26 is indefinite for reciting the limitation “(S3)” because the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear as to its intended meaning, because the specification at pages 20-22 shows that the step S3 contains multiple different steps, and therefore it is not clear as to how the parenthetical S3 is limiting the claim.
Claims 27-31 are indefinite for depending from claim 26 and for failing to remedy the indefiniteness of claim 26. Claim 33 is indefinite for reciting the method according to claim 26.
Claim 28 is indefinite for reciting “estimating the digital lens model based on…” because claim 26 previously recites “determining… a digital lens model” and therefore it is not clear as to whether the terms “determining” and “estimating” are synonymous. One of skill in the art would recognize that the two terms can have different meanings in certain contexts, e.g., the term “estimating” can mean to make an educated guess or rough calculation, whereas the term “determining” can mean to find out a precise calculation.
Claim 29 is indefinite for reciting “wherein the digital lens model is determined/estimated” because claim 16 only recites “determining… a digital lens model.” As discussed above, the terms ‘determined’ and ‘estimated’ can have different meanings to a person of skill in the art.
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the lens mapper" in line two. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite: (a) mathematical concepts, (e.g., mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and (b) mental processes, i.e., concepts performed in the human mind, (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
Subject matter eligibility evaluation in accordance with MPEP 2106.
Eligibility Step 1: Step 1 of the eligibility analysis asks: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claims 16-25 recite a method for conversion of a measurement of a lens (i.e., a process); claims 26-31 recite a method for conversion of a measurement of a lens (i.e., a process); claim 32 recites a non-transitory computer program (i.e., a manufacture); claim 33 recites a non-transitory computer program (i.e., a manufacture); claim 34 recites a device (i.e., a machine and/or a manufacture); and claim 35 recites a system comprising a lens measurer and a device (i.e., a machine and/or a manufacture).
Therefore, these claims are encompassed by the categories of statutory subject matter, and thus, satisfy the subject matter eligibility requirements under step 1.
[Step 1: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A: First it is determined in Prong One whether a claim recites a judicial exception, and if so, then it is determined in Prong Two whether the recited judicial exception is integrated into a practical application of that exception.
Eligibility Step 2A Prong One: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, examination is performed that analyzes whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e., whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim.
Independent claim 16 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
determining from the experimental lens measurement a digital lens model representing the lens (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus);
determining, based on the digital lens model, a converted digital lens model representing the lens in a second measurement condition (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus);
determining, based on the converted digital lens model, a converted digital lens measurement representing a lens measurement of the lens in the second measurement condition (i.e., mental processes, e.g., performing calculations; and mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus);
determining, based on the digital lens model, a digital lens measurement representing a lens measurement of the lens in the first measurement condition (i.e., mental processes, e.g., performing calculations; and mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus);
determining a conversion correction for the conversion from the first measurement condition to the second measurement condition based on two of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement (i.e., mental processes, e.g., performing calculations; and mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus);
determining the measurement result for the lens in the second measurement condition based on the conversion correction and the third one of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement (i.e., mental processes, e.g., performing calculations; and mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus).
Independent claim 26 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
determining from the experimental lens measurement a digital lens model representing the lens;
determining, based on the digital lens model, a converted digital lens measurement representing a converted lens measurement of the lens;
determining a measurement result for the lens by combining the experimental lens measurement with the converted digital lens measurement (S3) characterized in that the experimental lens measurement comprises an experimental parameter tuple comprising a first experimental parameter and a second experimental parameter,
wherein the converted digital lens measurement comprises a digital parameter being different from the first experimental parameter, wherein the measurement result is based on a measurement parameter tuple comprising the digital parameter and the second experimental parameter.
Independent claim 32 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
the steps of the method according to claim 16, as noted and discussed above.
Independent claim 33 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
the steps of the method according to claim 26, as noted and discussed above.
Independent claim 34 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
determining from the experimental lens measurement a digital lens model representing the lens;
determining, based on the digital lens model, a converted digital lens measurement representing a converted lens measurement of the lens;
determining a measurement result for the lens by combining the experimental lens measurement with the converted digital lens measurement;
wherein either the experimental lens measurement represents a light measurement of the lens in a first measurement condition, and the converted digital lens measurement represents a lens measurement of the lens in a second measurement condition, or
the experimental lens measurement comprises an experimental parameter tuple comprising a first experimental parameter and a second experimental parameter, wherein the converted digital lens measurement comprises a digital parameter being different from the first experimental parameter.
Independent claim 35 recites the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas:
the limitations of the device according to claim 34, as noted and discussed above.
Dependent claims 17-20, 22-24, and 27-30 further recite the following steps which fall within the mental processes and/or mathematical concepts groupings of abstract ideas, as noted below.
Dependent claim 17 further recites:
the conversion correction is a conversion correction factor obtained by the ratio or a function of the ratio of the two of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement (i.e., mental processes, e.g., performing calculations; and mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus).
Dependent claim 18 further recites:
the conversion correction is a conversion correction term obtained by the difference or a function of the difference of the two of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement (i.e., mental processes, e.g., performing calculations; and mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus).
Dependent claim 20 further recites:
in the first measurement condition, the influence of the cornea model is not considered, and in the second measurement condition, the influence of the cornea model is considered (i.e., mental processes, e.g., decision-making).
Dependent claim 22 further recites:
estimating the digital lens model based on the at least one parameter received and the at least one experimental first lens measurement (i.e., mental processes, e.g., performing calculations; and mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus).
Dependent claim 23 further recites:
the digital lens model is determined/estimated based on an iterative parameter optimization procedure with a plurality of iterative steps (i.e., mathematical concepts, vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus), wherein in each step:
a new set of parameter values of this iterative step of the lens is determined;
a digital lens model of this iterative step based on the new set of parameter values is determined;
a digital lens measurement of this iterative step is determined by a ray tracing simulation of the digital lens model of this iterative step; and
the digital lens measurement of this iterative step is compared with the experimental first lens measurement.
Dependent claim 24 further recites:
the converted digital lens measurement is determined by a ray tracing simulation of the converted digital lens model or the digital lens model wherein the converted digital lens measurement is determined by a ray tracing simulation of the converted digital lens model or the digital lens model (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus).
Dependent claim 27 further recites:
the first experimental parameter is a position of the incident light on the side of the lens of the incident light, wherein the second experimental parameter is the angle of the exit light on the surface of the lens of the exit light, wherein the digital parameter is a position of the exit light on the side of the lens of the exit light (i.e., mental processes, e.g., assigning values to a parameter).
Dependent claim 28 further recites:
the step of determining from the experimental lens measurement the digital lens model representing the lens comprises the following steps:
estimating the digital lens model based on the at least one parameter received and the at least one experimental first lens measurement (i.e., mental processes, e.g., performing calculations; and mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus).
Dependent claim 29 further recites:
the digital lens model is determined/estimated based on an iterative parameter optimization procedure with a plurality of iterative steps (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus), wherein in each step:
a new set of parameter values of this iterative step of the lens is determined;
a digital lens model of this iterative step based on the new set of parameter values is determined;
a digital lens measurement of this iterative step is determined by a ray tracing simulation of the digital lens model of this iterative step; and
the digital lens measurement of this iterative step is compared with the experimental first lens measurement.
Dependent claim 30 further recites:
the converted digital lens measurement is determined by a ray tracing simulation of the converted digital lens model or the digital lens model wherein the converted digital lens measurement is determined by a ray tracing simulation of the converted digital lens model or the digital lens model (i.e., mathematical concepts, e.g., vector geometry, Snell’s law of refraction, surface normals, wavefront aberration, differential calculus).
The abstract ideas recited in the claims are evaluated under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claim limitations when read in light of and consistent with the specification. As noted in the foregoing section, the claims are determined to contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind with the aid of a pen and paper (e.g., determining a conversion correction for the conversion (can practically be performed mentally with the aid of pen and paper)), and therefore recite judicial exceptions from the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the recited limitations that are identified as judicial exceptions from the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas (e.g., determining a conversion correction for the conversion (involves using formulas to perform calculations, e.g., see the specification at page 26, lines 18-32)) are abstract ideas irrespective of whether or not the limitations are practical to perform in the human mind.
Therefore, claims 16-35 recite an abstract idea.
[Step 2A Prong One: YES]
Eligibility Step 2A Prong Two: In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, further examination is performed that analyzes if the claim recites additional elements that when examined as a whole integrates the judicial exception(s) into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The claimed additional elements are analyzed to determine if the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(I); MPEP 2106.05(a-h)). If the claim contains no additional elements beyond the abstract idea, the claim fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(III)).
In the instant application, the claims provide additional elements to obtain and receive ‘experimental lens measurement’, however once the data is received, the subsequent steps only perform analysis and/or calculations using the data. The claims do not recite any limitations to which the final measurement result is practically applied.
The judicial exceptions identified in Eligibility Step 2A Prong One are not integrated into a practical application because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29, and 30 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception, and thus are part of the judicial exception.
The additional elements in independent claim 16 include:
receiving an experimental lens measurement of the lens from a light measurement of the lens in a first measurement condition (i.e., receiving data).
The additional elements in independent claim 26 include:
receiving an experimental lens measurement of the lens from a light measurement of the lens (i.e., receiving data).
The additional elements in independent claim 32 include:
a non-transitory computer program;
a processing means (i.e., a computer); and
receiving an experimental lens measurement of the lens from a light measurement of the lens in a first measurement condition (i.e., receiving data).
The additional elements in independent claim 33 include:
a non-transitory computer program;
a processing means (i.e., a computer); and
receiving an experimental lens measurement of the lens from a light measurement of the lens (i.e., receiving data).
The additional elements in independent claim 34 include:
a receiving means (i.e., a computer) for receiving an experimental lens measurement of the lens from a light measurement of the lens (i.e., receiving data).
The additional elements in independent claim 35 include:
a lens measurer configured to measure the exit light of a lens, the lens mapper comprising a light sensor for sensing said exit light to measure an experimental lens measurement;
a receiving means (i.e., a computer) for receiving the experimental lens measurement of the light sensor (i.e., receiving data); and
outputting the measurement result (i.e., outputting data).
The additional elements in dependent claim 19 include:
in the first measurement condition, the lens is arranged in a fluid, and in the second measurement condition, the lens is arranged in a gas; or in the first measurement condition, the lens is arranged in a gas, and in the second measurement condition, the lens is arranged in a fluid (i.e., further limiting the data at the receiving step of claim 16) (i.e., receiving data).
The additional elements in dependent claim 21 include:
the experimental lens measurement is obtained by illuminating the lens with an incident light, wherein, in the first measurement condition, the incident light has a first wavelength, and, in the second measurement condition, the incident light has a second wavelength or a range of wavelengths being different from the first wavelength.
The additional elements in dependent claims 22 and 28 include:
receiving at least one parameter of the lens (i.e., receiving data).
The additional elements in dependent claims 25 and 31 include:
illuminating the lens with an incident light interacting with the lens and creating an exit light caused by the interaction of the incident light with the lens; and measuring the exit light to obtain the experimental lens measurement.
The additional elements of a non-transitory computer program (claims 32 and 33); a processing means (i.e., a computer) (claims 32 and 33); and a receiving means (i.e., a computer) (claims 34 and 35); invoke a computer and/or computer-related components merely as tools for use in the claimed process, such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)), and therefore are not an improvement to computer functionality itself, or an improvement to any other technology or technical field, and thus, do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application (MPEP 2106.04(d)(1)).
The additional elements of receiving an experimental lens measurement of the lens from a light measurement of the lens in a first measurement condition (i.e., receiving data) (claims 16 and 32); receiving an experimental lens measurement of the lens from a light measurement of the lens (i.e., receiving data) (claims 26, 33, 34, and 35); in the first measurement condition, the lens is arranged in a fluid, and in the second measurement condition, the lens is arranged in a gas; or in the first measurement condition, the lens is arranged in a gas, and in the second measurement condition, the lens is arranged in a fluid (i.e., further limiting the data at the receiving step of claim 16) (i.e., receiving data) (claim 19); and receiving at least one parameter of the lens (i.e., receiving data) (claims 22 and 28); are merely pre-solution activities of gathering data for use in the claimed process – nominal or tangential additions to the claims that do not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional element of outputting the measurement result (i.e., outputting data) (claim 35) is merely a post-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process – a nominal or tangential addition to the claims that does not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore does not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The additional elements of a lens measurer configured to measure the exit light of a lens, the lens mapper comprising a light sensor for sensing said exit light to measure an experimental lens measurement (claim 35); the experimental lens measurement is obtained by illuminating the lens with an incident light, wherein, in the first measurement condition, the incident light has a first wavelength, and, in the second measurement condition, the incident light has a second wavelength or a range of wavelengths being different from the first wavelength (claim 21); illuminating the lens with an incident light interacting with the lens and creating an exit light caused by the interaction of the incident light with the lens and measuring the exit light to obtain the experimental lens measurement (claims 25 and 31); are merely pre-solution activities that are part of the process of gathering data for use in the claimed process – nominal or tangential additions to the claims that do not meaningfully limit the claims, and therefore do not add more than insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Thus, the additionally recited elements merely invoke a computer and/or computer related components as tools; and/or amount to insignificant extra-solution activity; and as such, when all limitations in claims 16-35 have been considered as a whole (i.e., the analysis takes into consideration all the claim limitations and how those limitations interact and impact each other when evaluating whether the exception is integrated into a practical application), the claims are deemed to not recite any additional elements that would integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, and therefore claims 16-35 are directed to an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04(d)).
[Step 2A Prong Two: NO]
Eligibility Step 2B: Because the claims recite an abstract idea, and do not integrate that abstract idea into a practical application, the claims are probed for a specific inventive concept. The judicial exception alone cannot provide that inventive concept or practical application (MPEP 2106.05). Identifying whether the additional elements beyond the abstract idea amount to such an inventive concept requires considering the additional elements individually and in combination to determine if they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05A i-vi).
The claims do not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) because of the reasons noted below.
Dependent claims 17, 18, 20, 23, 24, 27, 29, and 30 do not recite any elements in addition to the judicial exception(s).
The additional elements recited in independent claims 16, 26, and 32-35 and dependent claims 19, 21, 22, 25, 28, and 31 are identified above, and carried over from Step 2A Prong Two along with their conclusions for analysis at Step 2B. Any additional element or combination of elements that was considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity at Step 2A Prong Two was re-evaluated at Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant; and all additional elements and combination of elements were evaluated to determine whether any additional elements or combination of elements are other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or simply append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, per MPEP 2106.05(d).
The additional elements of a non-transitory computer program (claims 32 and 33); a processing means (i.e., a computer) (claims 32 and 33); and a receiving means (i.e., a computer) (claims 34 and 35); receiving data (claims 16, 19, 22, 26, 28, and 35-35); and outputting data (claim 35); are conventional computer components and/or functions (see MPEP at 2106.05(b) and 2106.05(d)(II) regarding conventionality of computer components and computer processes).
The additional elements of a lens measurer configured to measure the exit light of a lens, the lens mapper comprising a light sensor for sensing said exit light to measure an experimental lens measurement (claim 35); the experimental lens measurement is obtained by illuminating the lens with an incident light, wherein, in the first measurement condition, the incident light has a first wavelength, and, in the second measurement condition, the incident light has a second wavelength or a range of wavelengths being different from the first wavelength (claim 21); illuminating the lens with an incident light interacting with the lens and creating an exit light caused by the interaction of the incident light with the lens and measuring the exit light to obtain the experimental lens measurement (claims 25 and 31); are conventional. Evidence of conventionality is shown by:
Larrue et al. (“A Comparison of Four Different Lens Mappers.” Optometry and Vision Science, 2014, vol. 91, no. 11, pp. 260-266).
Larrue et al. reviews optical measurements of lens that are taken with different lens mappers, and shows that a number of lens mappers have become available for measuring the detailed optical properties of a range of different lens (Abstract). Larrue et al. shows an overview of four different types of lens mappers (page 261, col. 1, paras. 2-3; and Table 2).
Additional evidence is shown by:
Kollbaum et al. (“Validation of an Off-Eye Contact Lens Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Aberrometer.” Optometry and Vision Science, 2008, vol. 85(9), pp. 817-828).
Kollbaum et al. reviews an off-eye contact lens single pass Shack-Hartmann aberrometer called the ClearWave, made by AMO-Wavefront Sciences (page 2, para. 3). Kollbaum et al. shows that there are several types of wet cells that could be used to hold the contact lens (page 2, para. 6); ANSI ISO 9342 specifies two wavelengths at which index values can be reported for contact lenses, 546 nm and 587 nm (page 3, bottom); measurements were taken of lenses in a fluid-filled cell (page 5, bottom) and in air (page 6, para. 2); and a 540 nm light source is collimated by L3 to provide a plane wave incident at the contact lens (page 2, para. 4).
Therefore, when taken alone (i.e., individually), all additional elements in claims 16-35 do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Even when evaluated as an ordered combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception(s) into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, claims 16-35 are deemed to not contribute an inventive concept, i.e., amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) (MPEP 2106.05(II)).
[Step 2B: NO]
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Messner (“Method for testing individually produced intraocular lenses.” DE-102016209720) and Simpson (“Method of Measuring Diffractive Lenses.” US 2009/0033920) and Kolbaum et al. (“Validation of an Off-Eye Contact Lens Shack-Hartmann Wavefront Aberrometer.” Optometry and Vision Science, 2008, vol. 85(9), pp. 817-828, as cited above) and Neubert (“Spherical aberration, intraocular lens power and image quality.” Proc. SPIE, Ophthalmic Technologies III, 1993, vol. 1877, pp. 190-201).
Independent claims 16, 26, and 32-35 encompass methods, a system, and a device for receiving an experimental lens measurement of the lens from a light measurement of the lens in a first measurement condition; determining from the experimental lens measurement a digital lens model representing the lens; determining, based on the digital lens model, a converted digital lens model representing the lens in a second measurement condition; determining, based on the converted digital lens model, a converted digital lens measurement representing a lens measurement of the lens in the second measurement condition; determining, based on the digital lens model, a digital lens measurement representing a lens measurement of the lens in the first measurement condition; determining a conversion correction for the conversion from the first measurement condition to the second measurement condition based on two of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement; and determining the measurement result for the lens in the second measurement condition based on the conversion correction and the third one of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement.
Dependent claims 17-25 and 27-31 further define the conversion correction, the gathering of measurement data, and the steps of determining the digital lens model and determining the converted digital lens measurement.
Messner teaches a method for testing individually produced intraocular lenses for quality assurance, by obtaining measurements of a physical lens wavefront generated by the lens to be tested, and then using the obtained physical measurements to generate a digital lens model for computational simulation on a computer, and evaluating the physical lens measurements through comparison with the simulation results.
Simpson teaches a method for measuring the optical properties of multifocal ophthalmic lenses, and in particular, a method for diffractive lenses to compensate for the optical effects (i.e., through correction or conversion) due to the fact that the wavefront is not smooth and continuous like that of a conventional monofocal lens, and the local slopes of individual zones, and discontinuities at the diffractive steps affect the spot locations.
Kollbaum et al. teaches an evaluation of the ability of a commercially available single pass Shack-Hartmann aberrometer to evaluate lens aberrations, which allows for obtaining physical measurements in different conditions.
Neubert teaches a calculation technique for refractive bifocal intraocular lens (IOL) performance prediction using a conversion correction.
Regarding independent claims 16, 26, and 32-35, Messner shows an optical detection arrangement (for obtaining an experimental lens measurement in a first measurement condition) that includes a source of illumination of a light beam for passing through the lens and a wavefront sensor for receiving the light after passing through the lens (page 5, paras. 11 and 13-19); generating a three-dimensional computational intraocular digital lens model (Abstract) using a computational simulation system on a computer (page 3, paras. 9, 11, & 12); and evaluating the intraocular lens to be tested by comparing the experimentally (i.e., physically) obtained measurements and simulated measurements obtained through computational simulation using a digital lens model (page 3, para. 14).
Regarding independent claims 16, 26, and 32-35, Messner does not show a digital lens model representing the lens in a second measurement condition; determining a conversion correction for the conversion from the first measurement condition to the second measurement condition based on two of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement; or determining the measurement result for the lens in the second measurement condition based on the conversion correction and the third one of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement.
Regarding independent claims 16, 26, and 32-35, Simpson shows a method for measuring optical properties of a diffractive lens, comprising passing light through the diffractive lens, using a system designed for measuring optical properties of a lens, measuring one or more properties of the diffractive lens based on the light exited from the lens, calculating one or more properties of the diffractive lens to determine an expected one or more properties of the diffractive lens, comparing the determined one or more properties of the diffractive lens against the one or more theoretical calculations of the diffractive lens, calculating one or more properties of the system used to measure the properties of the lens, measuring one or more properties of the system used to measure the properties of the diffractive lens, and correcting the measurement of one or more properties of the diffractive lens based on the comparison against the one or more expected properties of the diffractive lens and the one or more properties of the system for measuring properties of a lens (para. [0012]); measurements may be performed in a laboratory using a model eye (para. [0041]) that include fabricated corneal lenses (paras. [0043] & [0044]); light passing through a lens in a wet cell (para. [0054]; and FIG. 7A); light passing through a lens in a model eye (para. [0054]; and FIG. 7B); and further shows that a wavefront of a diffractive lens has discontinuities and a sample of the wavefront may not be fine enough to measure the true wavefront, e.g., in ophthalmology, sampling generally involves coarse sampling that tends to cross zone boundaries, and therefore may require some correction or conversion.
Regarding independent claims 16, 26, and 32-35, while Simpson does provide for measuring optical properties of a diffractive lens and for the steps requiring calculations for corrections or conversions of optical properties of a wavefront of a physical lens, Simpson does not show a converted digital lens model representing the lens in a second measurement condition; determining, based on the converted digital lens model, a converted digital lens measurement representing a lens measurement of the lens in the second measurement condition; determining a conversion correction for the conversion from the first measurement condition to the second measurement condition based on two of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement; or determining the measurement result for the lens in the second measurement condition based on the conversion correction and the third one of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement.
Regarding independent claims 16, 26, and 32-35, Kollbaum et al. shows that the wet cell is assumed to be aberration-free, but a reference measurement can be made of the saline-filled wet cell, and then the aberration of the lens can be calculated as the difference of this reference measurement and that of the saline-filled wet cell containing a contact lens, and as the vergence of the wavefront exiting the wet cell will be slightly altered by the thickness of the fluid under the lens and the thickness of the lower layer of silica, a computational correction is applied to correct for these effects (page 3, para. 1); and measurements taken in the saline-filled wet cell require conversion to in-air equivalent power (i.e., a first and second measurement condition) (page 3, para. 3), however, this conversion is quite sensitive to small changes in the indices of refraction of the lens and solution (page 3, para. 5).
Regarding independent claims 16, 26, and 32-35, while Kollbaum et al. does show obtaining lens measurements in a first and second condition, and applying a computational correction to correct for aberrations of optical properties, Kollbaum et al. does not show determining a conversion correction for the conversion from the first measurement condition to the second measurement condition based on two of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement; or determining the measurement result for the lens in the second measurement condition based on the conversion correction and the third one of the digital lens measurement, the converted digital lens measurement and the experimental lens measurement.
Regarding independent claims 16, 26, and 32-35, Neubert shows that spherical aberration for intraocular lenses is calculated based on surface contributions (Abstract) and further shows that using standard calculations causes the lens power to be over-estimated (page 190, Introduction: para. 2) and that correction on lens power measurement require not only a prediction of where the rays traversing the lens cross the optical axis, but what impact this has on image quality and where along the optical axis the “best” image will be formed (page 190, Introduction: para. 3). Neubert further shows a power conversion correction term of equation (4) (page 197, para. 3) that results in the most accurate labelling of lens power (page 200, Conclusions: para. 3).
Regarding dependent claims 17 and 18, Neubert further shows various correction equations and calculations, and at least with regard to bifocal intraocular lenses (IOL), where the pupil function may be a discontinuous function of the aperture, the location of best focus, and therefore the LSA (longitudinal spherical aberration) correction needed, if any, can be calculated from the image location having a maximum Strehl ratio (page 200, para. 5), with the LSA of an IOL conveniently calculated based on surface contributions, with the resulting coefficient able to be used in the prediction of optimal image location and evaluation of image quality using the Strehl ratio to incorporate the impact of spherical aberration (page 200, para. 2).
Regarding dependent claim 19, Kollbaum et al. further shows measurements were taken of lenses in air (page 4, Experiment 1) and measurements of those same lenses were also taken with the lenses in a wet cell filled with saline solution (page 4, Experiment 2).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Messner further shows a step in the evaluation of the intraocular lens to be tested wherein the simulated cornea is disregarded (page 5, para. 6).
Regarding dependent claim 21, Kollbaum et al. further shows that refractive index will vary with temperature, and that ANSI ISO 9342 specifies two wavelengths at which index values can be reported for contact lenses, 546 nm and 587 nm (page 3, bottom).
Regarding dependent claims 22 and 28, Messner further shows an evaluation of an intraocular lens in terms of quality by comparing the experimentally obtained measurements with the obtained simulation results (page 5, para. 6).
Regarding dependent claims 23 and 29, Messner further shows evaluating the iteratively altered intraocular lens model, and in particular, evaluating a difference in wavefront height between the experiment and simulated measurements (page 5, para. 6), and further shows using a ray trace simulation (page 5, para. 4).
Regarding dependent claims 24 and 30, Messner further shows using a ray trace simulation (page 5, para. 4).
Regarding dependent claims 25, 27, and 31, Kollbaum et al. further shows a light source is collimated to provide a plane wave incident at the contact lens, and after passing through the lens, the wavefront is imaged (page 2, para. 4; and Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the digital simulation method shown by Messner by incorporating methods for compensating (e.g., correction and/or conversion) for optical effects due to the fact that the wavefront for diffractive lens is not smooth and continuous like that of a conventional monofocal lens, as shown by Simpson and discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of Messner with the methods of Simpson, because Simpson shows that a wavefront of a diffractive lens has discontinuities, and a sample of the wavefront may not be fine enough to measure the true wavefront. This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both Messner and Simpson disclose methods for measuring the optical properties of lenses.
It would have been further prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method shown by Messner by incorporating an off-eye aberrometer for obtaining experimental measurements of lens aberrations, as shown by Kollbaum et al. and discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of Messner with the methods of Kollbaum et al., because Kollbaum et al. shows methods for using a wavefront aberrometer to obtain measurements of optical properties for evaluating the ex vivo optical characteristics of contact lenses. This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both Messner and Kollbaum et al. disclose methods for measuring the optical properties of lenses.
It would have been further prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method shown by Messner by incorporating methods for incorporating corrections in power conversion calculations, as shown by Neubert and discussed above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the methods of Messner with the methods of Neubert, because Neubert shows that measurements conversions can be corrected to obtain better results in accurately labelling the power of lenses. This modification would have had a reasonable expectation of success given that both Messner and Neubert disclose methods for measuring the optical properties of lenses.
Thus, the instant claimed invention would have been prima facie obvious.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
This Office action is a Non-Final action. A shortened statutory period for reply to this action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this application.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEVEN W. BAILEY whose telephone number is (571)272-8170. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 1000 - 1800.
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, KARLHEINZ SKOWRONEK can be reached at (571) 272-9047. 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.
/STEVEN W. BAILEY/Examiner, Art Unit 1687
Prosecution Insights