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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
USC 112(f) Issues
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the USC 112(f) invocation, Examiner is not persuaded. The terms meet the 3-prong test (MPEP 2181). The limitations recite nonce terms (e.g. device/sensor, which are substitutes for means) thus satisfying prong A; the limitations recite functional language thus meeting prong B; the limitations are not modified by any structure within the claim for prong C. MPEP 2181.I - Application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is driven by the claim language, not by applicant’s intent or mere statements to the contrary included in the specification or made during prosecution. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d at 1194, 29 USPQ2d at 1850.
While Applicant states “[t]he specification at issue provided numerous and substantial descriptions such that the noted claim limitations, when read in light of the specification, connote sufficient, definite structure to one of skill in the art”, Applicant’s has not provided any known structure of “device” or “sensor”, or any special definition unlike “filters,” “brakes,” etc.
Applicant is invited to amend the claim with structure to remove prong C and thus no longer invoke USC 112(f).
USC 112(a) Issues
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the USC 112(a) issue of the computer implemented function “determined, based on the image of the iris and the position of the iris, whether the iris matches an iris of a known patient”, Examiner is not persuaded.
Here, Applicant cites to paragraph [0040], and that the sufficient algorithm is “the actual sizes of the iris 212 may be determined based on the principle that the measured size of the iris 212 (encoded in the captured iris image) is proportional to the separation distance between the iris 212 and the proximity sensor 160”, however this is not a sufficient algorithm of how the computer determine the actual size of the iris. Specifically, there is no algorithm on how the computer “measured the size of the iris 212”. Further, simply knowing whether the actual iris and the measured iris are proportional, still isn’t enough to determine the actual size of the iris. This would require knowing the proportionality, which the computer function has not determined.
Applicant’s algorithm is still insufficient (MPEP 2161.01).
Regarding Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the USC 112(a) issue of “the matching threshold is a Hamming distance threshold, and wherein the comparing the captured image and the at least one of the size of the iris or the curvature of the cornea includes comparing a difference between the captured image and a stored authentication image to the Hamming distance threshold”, Examiner is not persuaded.
Applicant points out that such a sufficient and necessary algorithm is found in para. [0044] stating a “positive matching result occurs when at least a specific fraction of the total bits match, thereby satisfying a Hamming distance threshold predetermined for such a matching (i.e., authentication) process. In the present embodiments, the Hamming distance threshold (hereafter referred to as the threshold) is a concept commonly understood by persons ordinarily skilled in the art. By way of example, the threshold for the matching process discussed herein may be about 0.3…”, however this is not what is claimed.
What is claimed is comparing the difference between the captured image and a stored authentication image, not the comparison of an iris code as it appears Applicant implies via citation to para. [0044].
Even if claim 20 is assumed to be comparing a difference (fraction?) between a captured iris code and a registered iris code, Applicant’s specification does not contain any, or sufficient, algorithm for providing the iris code itself and the associated comparison to achieve the exemplary 0.3. threshold.
USC 112(b) Issues
Applicant’s remarks have not resolved the USC 112(f) invocation + USC 112(b) rejection since the claims continue to invoke USC 112(f) and Applicant’s specification has failed to provide the necessary structure to the optical sensor to detect an iris distance or a proximity sensor to detect an iris distance.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 14 has not resolved the issue of the matching threshold. Specifically, Applicant’s specification does not contain a discussion of the matching threshold “being a ratio of…”. While Applicant’s specification contains a discussion of using a fraction of iris code bits (para. [0044]), this is not a “ratio of a portion out of the entire captured image”. Additionally, Examiner already addressed the issue of what 0.3 means and Hamming distance which is conventionally an integer, not a fraction.
Applicant’s amendment to claim 14 has not resolved the USC 112(b) issues of claim 16 from which it depends.
Applicant’s amendments resolve the USC 112(b) issues of claim 19.
USC 102, 103 Issues
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
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. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) an imaging device configured to…in claim 1
b) an optical sensor…configured to detect a position …in claim 1
c) a computing device…configured to…in claim 1
d) determining a distance…from the proximity sensor… in claim 14
e) the optical sensor…configured to measure deflection …in claim 3
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/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 it/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 it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “determine, based on the image of the iris and the position of the iris, whether the iris matches an iris of a known patient” which is a computer implemented function without the corresponding/sufficient algorithm (MPEP 2161.01.I - Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made).
Specifically, Applicant’s specification considers such matching at decision (22) in Figure 7A. Applicant’s specification1 discusses matching an “iris code” to a registered iris code, however Applicant’s specification does not provide any the sufficient/necessary algorithm to determine an iris code from the image of the iris.
Additionally, Applicant’s specification2 includes comparing the actual size of the iris from the captured image with irises stored in the database, however Applicant’s specification does not provide the sufficient/necessary algorithm for determining the actual size of the iris.
Claims 3-7, 21 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
As to claim 14, the claim recites “determining a size of the iris based on the determined distance and captured image…comparing…the size of the iris…to confirm an identity of the patient” which is a computer implemented function without the corresponding/sufficient algorithm (MPEP 2161.01.I - Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient… If the specification does not provide a disclosure of the computer and algorithm in sufficient detail to demonstrate to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor possessed the invention a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, for lack of written description must be made).
Applicant’s specification includes comparing the actual size of the iris of the captured image with irises stored in the database, however Applicant’s specification does not provide the sufficient/necessary algorithm for determining a size of the iris.
As to claim 14, the claim recites “the matching threshold being a ratio of a matching portion out of the entire captured image” which appears to be new matter. Specifically, Applicant’s originally filed specification doesn’t specify the matching threshold is a ratio of an entire captured image. While Applicant’s specification discusses comparing captured iris code bits to registered iris code bits as a fraction, this is not a ratio of a matching portion of an entire capture image.
Claims 15-20 are rejected as dependent upon claim 14.
As to claim 20, the claim recites “the matching threshold is a Hamming distance threshold, and wherein the comparing the captured image and the at least one of the size of the iris or the curvature of the cornea includes comparing a difference between the captured image and a stored authentication image to the Hamming distance threshold” which is a computer implemented method without the corresponding/sufficient algorithm ((MPEP 2161.01.I).
Applicant’s specification discusses the use of the Hamming distance threshold in the context of the iris code3 - i.e. the iris code of the patient compared to a stored authentication iris code, however Applicant’s specification does not provide any/sufficient algorithm for comparing iris size of the patient and a stored iris size, or a corneal curvature to a stored curvature, and a corresponding Hamming distance threshold of the iris size or corneal curvature comparison.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7, 14-21 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.
As to claims 1, 21, the claim limitation “an optical sensor…configured to…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide any structure to the optical sensor to detect a position of the iris (claim 1) or a separation distance between the iris and the optical sensor (claim 21).
As to claim 14, the claim limitation “determine a distance…from the proximity sensor” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant’s specification does not appear to provide any structure to the proximity sensor to detect a distance of the iris.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-7, 15-21 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1 or 14.
As to claim 14, the claim recites “the confirmation is based on a matching threshold…being a ratio of a matching portion out of the entire captured image” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “matching threshold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Specifically, while Applicant’s specification4 discusses an exemplary threshold of 0.3, such threshold is not relative to any objective metric or parameters. Is this specific to the Hamming threshold? If 0.3 is a result of the Hamming distance determination, what does 0.3 represent? If 0.3 is a fraction, does 0.3 mean 30% of the bits are the same, or different, or something else? Hamming distances are often integers5 - e.g. the number of different bits or errors between two bit strings.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification6 discusses comparing sizes of the actual iris to iris sizes in the database to increase the threshold, however such threshold appears entirely arbitrary. Threshold of what? How is such a size threshold measured/determined? What is a matching threshold of the comparison of the iris sizes?
For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the prior art confirms an identity, such matching threshold is met.
As to claim 16, the claim recites “comprising adjusting the matching threshold based on confirming the identity of the patient” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “adjusting the matching threshold” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 3-5, 14-17, 19, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujieda (US 7,123,751; of record) in view of Oki (JP 2021-145914; text references made to the attached machine translation paragraphs).
As to claim 1, Fujieda teaches a system comprising an ophthalmic diagnostic device configure to apply pressure to an eye of a patient to facilitate an intraocular pressure measurement of the patient (Fujieda Fig. 7 - 300; col. 10:44-48; col. 10:60-65), the eye of the patient including an iris and a cornea (Fujieda Fig. 2 - E, Ed);
an imaging device configured to capture an image of the iris (Fujieda Fig. 2 - 36; col. 5:38-47; Fig. 3 - 43; Fig. 5A; Fig. 7 - 300; col. 10:60-67);
an optical sensor integrated with the imaging device and configured to detect a position of the iris with respect to the optical sensor (Fujieda Fig. 2 - 10, 15, 11, 12, 16, 17; col. 4:50-55; Fig. 5A; col. 7:24-44);
a computing device in communication with the ophthalmic diagnostic device, the imaging device, and the optical sensor (Fujieda Fig. 3 - 40; Fig. 4 - 250; Fig. 7 - 100, 300, 400, 500, 600, 200), the computing device configured to
determine, based on the image of the iris and the position of the iris, whether the iris matches an iris of a known patient (Fujieda Fig. 6 - make alignment, adjust pupil size, photograph anterior eye segment and generate eye identification code from iris pattern…obtained eye identification code = inputted eye identification code?; col. 8:4-31; col. 9:45-60);
determine whether to perform a measurement of an eye of the patient based on determining whether the iris matches the iris of the known patient (Fujieda Fig. 6; col. 8:4-31; col. 9:45-60).
Fujieda teaches the tonometer (IOP measurement) also performs iris code generation (Fujieda col. 10:60-65). Fujieda teaches the eye measurement based on the iris matching condition is for the corneal surgery system (Fujieda Fig. 1 - 200; Fig. 6 - Surgery Apparatus), thus Fujieda doesn’t specify performing the IOP measurement based on whether the iris matches the known patient iris.
In the same field of endeavor Oki teaches a tonometer (Oki para. [0002] - intraocular pressure…ophthalmic equipment) with biometric authentication via iris information (Oki para. [0006]), and determining whether to perform the eye measurements of ophthalmic instruments, including IOP measurement, based on determining whether the iris matches the iris of the known patient (Oki Fig. 5 - S5, S6, S7, S8; para. [0075]-[0081] - as discussed, given the proper eye identification, the ophthalmic device can either be stopped or continue to perform the ophthalmic operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to determine whether to perform the IOP measurement based on the iris match since, as taught by Oki, such iris identification allows for ensuring the correct eye is being tested/examined (Oki Fig. 5 - S5, S6, S7, S8; para. [0075]-[0081]).
As to claim 3, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujieda further teaches the ophthalmic diagnostic device is portable (Fujieda Fig. 7 - 300; implicit, all things are portable to some extent, also the tonometer shown is a tabletop set) and hand held (Fujieda Fig. 7 - tonometer (300) includes a joystick), and wherein the optical sensor is configured to measure deflection of the eye of the patient in response to pressure applied by a nozzle of the portable, hand-held ophthalmic diagnostic device (Fujieda Fig. 7 - 300; col. 10:39-48 - noncontact tonometer).
As to claim 4, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujieda further teaches the computing device is configured to determine a deflection value of the eye of the patient in response to pressure applied by the ophthalmic diagnostic device using data obtained from the imaging device (Fujieda col. 10:60-67), the computing device being configured to calculate the IOP measurement using the deflection value (Fujieda col. 10:60-67).
As to claim 5, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujieda teaches the imaging device includes a light source configured to illuminate the eye of the patient with an incident light (Fujieda Fig. 2 - 3, 5, 34, 36; col. 4:36-50; col. 5:38-48), and a camera configured to capture an image of the eye of the patient that includes a reflection of the incident light (Fujieda Fig. 2 - 36; col. 5:38-47; Fig. 3 - 43; Fig. 5A; Fig. 7 - 300; col. 10:60-67).
As to claim 14, Fujieda teaches a method comprising providing an iris recognition system comprising at least an imaging module (Fujieda Fig. 2 - 36; col. 5:38-47; Fig. 3 - 43; Fig. 5A; Fig. 7 - 300; col. 10:60-67) and a proximity sensor (Fujieda Fig. 2 - 10, 15, 11, 12, 16, 17; col. 4:50-55; Fig. 5A; col. 7:24-44);
capturing an image of an iris of an eye of a patient using the imaging module (Fujieda Fig. 2 - 36; col. 5:38-47; Fig. 3 - 43; Fig. 5A);
determining a distance of the iris from the proximity sensor (Fujieda Fig. 2 - 10, 15, 11, 12, 16, 17; col. 4:50-67; col. 5:49-65; Fig. 5A; col. 7:24-44; col. 7:60-67; col. 8:1-3);
determining a size of the iris based on the determined distance and the captured image (Fujieda Fig. 3 - 43; col. 5:60-65; Fig. 5A; Fig. 6 - make alignment; adjust pupil size, are pupil alignment and pupil size appropriate?; col. 7:51-67; col. 8:1-20);
determining, based on the captured image, a curvature of a cornea of the patient (Fujieda Fig. 2; col. 4:30-36; col. 8:32-46);
comparing the captured image and at least one of the size of the iris or the curvature of the cornea with corresponding data stored in a database to confirm an identity of the patient, (Fujieda Fig. 6 - photograph anterior eye segment and generate eye identification code from iris pattern; col. 8:20-30; Fig. 6 - obtained eye identification code = inputted eye identification code?; col. 9:45-60), wherein the confirmation is based on a matching threshold (Fujieda col. 9:45-60), the matching threshold being a ratio of a matching portion out of the entire captured image (Fujieda col. 9:45-60; col. 10:26-30), that matching portion being a portion of the capture image which matches a stored image in the corresponding data (Fujieda col. 9:45-60; col. 10:26-30).
determine whether to perform a measurement of an eye of the patient based on determining whether the iris matches the iris of the known patient (Fujieda Fig. 6; col. 8:4-31; col. 9:45-60).
Fujieda teaches the tonometer (IOP measurement) also performs iris code generation (Fujieda col. 10:60-65). Fujieda teaches the eye measurement based on the iris matching condition is for the corneal surgery system (Fujieda Fig. 1 - 200; Fig. 6 - Surgery Apparatus), thus Fujieda doesn’t specify performing the IOP measurement based on whether the iris matches the known patient iris.
In the same field of endeavor Oki teaches a tonometer (Oki para. [0002] - intraocular pressure…ophthalmic equipment) with biometric authentication via iris information (Oki para. [0006]), and determining whether to perform the eye measurements of ophthalmic instruments, including IOP measurement, based on determining whether the iris matches the iris of the known patient (Oki Fig. 5 - S5, S6, S7, S8; para. [0075]-[0081] - as discussed, given the proper eye identification, the ophthalmic device can either be stopped or continue to perform the ophthalmic operation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to determine whether to perform the IOP measurement based on the iris match since, as taught by Oki, such iris identification allows for ensuring the correct eye is being tested/examined (Oki Fig. 5 - S5, S6, S7, S8; para. [0075]-[0081]).
As to claim 15, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, and Fujieda further teaches providing an ophthalmic system configured to obtain a diagnostic measurement of the eye of the patient (Fujieda Figs. 1-4, 6-7), wherein the ophthalmic system is integrated with the iris recognition system (Fujieda Figs. 1-4, 6-7); and
obtaining, based on confirming the identity of the patient, the diagnostic measurement of the eye of the patient using the ophthalmic system (Fujieda Fig. 6).
As to claim 16, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Fujieda further teaches adjusting the matching threshold based on confirming the identity of the patient (Fujieda Figs. 6, 9; col. 10:3-23).
As to claim 17, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Fujieda further teaches the ophthalmic system includes a non-contact tonometer (Fujieda Fig. 7 - 300; col. 10:39-45).
As to claim 19, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Fujieda further teaches calculating a measured dimension of the iris based on the captured image (Fujieda Fig. 3 - 43; col. 5:60-65; Fig. 5A; Fig. 6 - make alignment; adjust pupil size, are pupil alignment and pupil size appropriate?; col. 8:4-20);
determining a position of the iris with respect to the proximity sensor (Fujieda Fig. 3 - 43; col. 5:60-65; Fig. 5A; Fig. 6 - make alignment; adjust pupil size, are pupil alignment and pupil size appropriate?; col. 7:51-67); and
determining an actual dimension of the iris based on the calculated measured dimension and the position of the iris (Fujieda col. 8:4-20).
As to claim 21, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Fujieda further teaches the optical sensor is configured to detect a separation distance between the iris and the optical sensor (Fujieda col. 4:50-67; col. 5:49-65), and wherein the computing device is configured to determine, based on the image of the iris and the separation distance, whether the iris matches an iris of a known patient (Fujieda col. 5:49-67; col. 6:1-20).
Claims 6-7, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujieda and Oki as applied to claims 5, 14 above, and further in view of Achatz et al. (US 4,159,867 - Achatz; of record).
As to claims 6-7, 18, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claims 5 and 14, and Fujieda teaches determining the corneal curvature via Placido disk imaging (Fujieda Fig. 2 - 36, 3, 2; col. 4:30-50; col. 8:38-46) and thus not a Purkinje corneal curvature technique.
In the same field of endeavor Achatz teaches determining corneal curvature via the Purkinje technique (Achatz Fig. 1; col. 1:27-30; col. 2:55-64; col. 3:30-45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a Purkinje technique since, as taught by Achatz, such techniques are well known in the art for determining the corneal curvature (Achatz Fig. 1; col. 1:27-30; col. 2:55-64; col. 3:30-45).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujieda and Oki as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Daugman (US 5,291,560; of record).
As to claim 20, Fujieda in view of Oki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 14, but doesn’t specify the matching threshold is a Hamming distance threshold, and wherein the comparing the captured image and the at least one of the size of the iris or the curvature of the cornea includes comparing a difference between the captured image and a stored authentication image to the Hamming distance threshold.
In the same field of endeavor Daugman teaches iris authentication comprising a matching threshold that is a Hamming distance threshold (Daugman Fig. 1 - 20, 22, 24, 26), and wherein the comparing the captured image and the at least one of the size of the iris or the curvature of the cornea includes comparing a difference between the captured image and a stored authentication image to the Hamming distance threshold (Daugman Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the matching threshold as a Hamming threshold since, as taught by Daugman, such threshold allows for performing iris identification and comparing the iris code to compute a probability of matching irises (Daugman Fig. 1; col. 3:20-45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Shin (US 7,277,561; 2004/0037452); Lee et al. (US 2016/0317025) are cited as additional examples of iris identification in ophthalmic instrumentation/examination.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 April 1, 2026
1 Originally filed spec. para. [0044]
2 Originally filed spec. para. [0045]
3 Originally filed spec. para. [0044]
4 Originally filed specification para. [0044]
5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamming_distance
6 Originally filed specification para. [0045]