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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on August 25, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on August 3, 2026 has been entered. Claim 4 has been canceled in the present application. Claims 1, 8, and 13 have been amended in the present application. Claims 13-20 are withdrawn from consideration. Claims 1-3 and 5-12 are under consideration in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 3, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-14 that Brown fails to disclose “a recommendation associated with the patient,” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Brown only describes using a server to “provide the images and/or analyze results” and “perform the analysis” and never for a recommendation. However, the claim language states “information associated with the patient, the information including a recommendation associated with a patient” and does not describe generating a recommendation. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, as is well understood in the medical field analyzing results often have a recommendation associated with it. For example, measuring the refractive power of the eye as described by Brown ([0002]) would be a result but the refractive power is also a recommendation since it carries with it a prescription which is a recommendation for the refractive power needed to improve vision. Thus analyzing results can be synonymous with a recommendation. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive and Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 7 over Brown.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 8, and 11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Campbell et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0002631 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Campbell”).
Regarding claim 1, Campbell teaches a system (Figure 1A system 1000), comprising:
a processing unit (Figure 1A processor 1410, [0035]);
one or more light sources (Figure 1A light sources 1200) operatively connected to the processing unit (Figure 1A light sources 1200 are connected to processor 1410);
a light sensor (Figure 1A detector array 1400) operatively connected to the processing unit (Figure 1A detector array 1400 is connected to processor 1410); and
non-transitory computer-readable media storing instructions that, when executed by the processing unit ([0059] processor 1410 has memory carries out instructions), cause the processing unit to perform operations comprising:
causing the one or more light sources to direct radiation to a cornea of a patient (Figure 1C light sources 1200 illuminate cornea of eye 100, [0059]) in a predetermined pattern (Figures 8,12 distribution of light sources 1200);
causing the light sensor to capture a portion of the radiation that is reflected from the cornea of the patient ([0059] detector 1400 images reflected from the cornea);
generating an image based on the portion of the radiation ([0059] reflected light from each of light sources 1200 is imaged or mapped on detector array 1400), the image illustrating a dot indicative of reflected radiation ([0059] light sources 1200 are correlated to a particular reflection location);
determining a location, within the image, of the dot indicative of the reflected radiation ([0059] processor 1410 determines the locations and/or shape of the light spots on detector array 1400);
determining an expected location, the expected location being indicative of where the dot indicative of the reflected radiation is expected to be captured ([0059] locations and/or shapes that expected for a standard or model cornea) , wherein the expected location is determined based on:
the predetermined pattern of the one or more light sources ([0100] Figure 9 expected pattern of light spots on detector array 1400 produced from source pattern of Figure 8); and
a location of the one or more light sources relative to the eye of the patient (Figures 9-11 show expected location of reflections for a model cornea when light sources 1200 have the locations of Figures 8 and 12 relative to the eye);
determining a difference between the location of the dot indicative of the reflected radiation and the expected location ([0059] locations and/or shapes of reflected light spots and expected light spots are compared); and
determining, based at least in part on the difference, a curvature of the cornea ([0059] corneal topography is determined from comparison of locations and/or shape of reflected light spots to expected light spots).
Regarding claim 2, Campbell teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Campbell further teaches the one or more light sources (Figure 1A light sources 1200) are disposed within a housing of a vision screening device (Figure 1A system 1000 has a housing) and arranged in a predetermined pattern, the predetermined pattern comprising one of a grid pattern, a diamond pattern, a circular pattern (Figure 8), a placido ring pattern ([0016] placido-type light source array), a dot matrix pattern (Figure 12), or a spot matrix pattern.
Regarding claim 3, Campbell teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Campbell further teaches the one or more light sources comprise one or more light emitting diodes (LEDs) ([0041] light sources 1200 may comprise LEDs).
Regarding claim 6, Campbell teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Campbell further teaches generating an expected return image based at least partly on the predetermined pattern of the one or more light sources ([0100] Figure 9 expected pattern of light spots on detector array 1400 produced from source pattern of Figure 8; Figures 10 and 11 illustrate expected return images based a pattern of light sources similar to Figure 12 [0101]-[0105]) and an angle of the one or more light sources relative to the patient (Figures 9-11 show expected location of reflections for a model cornea when light sources 1200 have the angles of Figures 8 and 12 relative to the patient); and determining the expected location based on the generated expected return image ([0059] locations and/or shapes that expected for a standard or model cornea).
Regarding claim 8, Campbell teaches a vision screening device (Figure 1A system 1000), comprising:
a processing unit (Figure 1A processor 1410, [0035]);
a housing (Figure 1A system 1000 has a housing);
one or more light sources (Figure 1A light sources 1200) disposed within the housing and operatively connected to the processing unit (Figure 1A light sources 1200 are connected to processor 1410);
a light sensor (Figure 1A detector array 1400) disposed within the housing and operatively connected to the processing unit (Figure 1A light sources 1200 are connected to processor 1410); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processing unit ([0059] processor 1410 has memory carries out instructions), cause the vision screening device to:
cause the one or more light sources to direct radiation to a cornea of a patient (Figure 1C light sources 1200 illuminate cornea of eye 100, [0059]) in a predetermined pattern (Figures 8,12 distribution of light sources 1200);
cause the light sensor to capture a portion of the radiation that is reflected from the cornea of the patient ([0059] detector 1400 images reflected from the cornea);
generate an image based on the portion of the radiation ([0059] reflected light from each of light sources 1200 is imaged or mapped on detector array 1400), the image illustrating a dot indicative of reflected radiation ([0059] light sources 1200 are correlated to a particular reflection location),
determine a location, within the image, of the dot indicative of the reflected radiation ([0059] processor 1410 determines the locations and/or shape of the light spots on detector array 1400);
determine an expected location, the expected location being indicative of where the dot indicative of the reflected radiation is expected to be captured ([0059] locations and/or shapes that expected for a standard or model cornea), wherein the expected location is determined based on:
the predetermined pattern of the one or more light sources ([0100] Figure 9 expected pattern of light spots on detector array 1400 produced from source pattern of Figure 8); and
a location of the one or more light sources relative to the eye of the patient (Figures 9-11 show expected location of reflections for a model cornea when light sources 1200 have the locations of Figures 8 and 12 relative to the eye);
determine a difference between the location of the dot indicative of the reflected radiation and the expected location ([0059] locations and/or shapes of reflected light spots and expected light spots are compared); and
determine, based at least partly on the difference, a curvature of the cornea ([0059] corneal topography is determined from comparison of locations and/or shape of reflected light spots to expected light spots).
Regarding claim 10, Campbell teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Campbell further teaches the one or more light sources (Figure 1A light sources 1200) are configured to emit the radiation according to the predetermined pattern, the predetermined pattern comprising one of a grid pattern, a diamond pattern, a circular (Figure 8), a placido ring pattern ([0016] placido-type light source array), a dot matrix pattern (Figure 12), or a spot matrix pattern.
Regarding claim 11, Campbell teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Campbell further teaches a range finder ([0141] range finding means), the range finder being used for determining a distance of the patient from the vision screening device ([0106] and [0141] range finding means can be used to measure distance from instrument to cornea), wherein the expected location is determined based on the predetermined pattern ([0100] Figure 9 expected pattern of light spots on detector array 1400 produced from source pattern of Figure 8; Figures 10 and 11 illustrate expected return images based a pattern of light sources similar to Figure 12 [0101]-[0105]) and the distance ([0106] and [0141] distance from instrument to cornea is needed to determine or eliminate vertex error).
Regarding claim 12, Campbell teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Campbell further teaches the memory further storing instructions that, when executed by the processing unit ([0059] processor 1410 has memory carries out instructions), cause the vision screening device to:
generate an expected return image ([0059] a standard or model cornea) based at least partly on the predetermined pattern of the one or more light sources ([0100] Figure 9 expected pattern of light spots on detector array 1400 produced from source pattern of Figure 8; Figures 10 and 11 illustrate expected return images based a pattern of light sources similar to Figure 12 [0101]-[0105])), the expected return image illustrating expected locations of the returned radiation ([0100] Figure 9 expected pattern of light spots on detector array 1400 produced from source pattern of Figure 8; Figures 10 and 11 illustrate expected return images based a pattern of light sources similar to Figure 12 [0101]-[0105]); and
determine the expected location based on the generated expected return image ([0059] locations and/or shapes that expected for a standard or model cornea).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0002631) as applied to claim 1 and 8 above, and in view of Shalon et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,585,873 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Shalon”).
Regarding claim 5, Campbell teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Campbell fails to teach determining, based at least partly on the curvature of the cornea, a prescription for the patient; and displaying the prescription on a display of a vision screening device. However, Shalon is related to Campbell with respect to a system to measure corneal curvature (Figure 1 keratometer 10) and teaches determining, based at least partly on the curvature of the cornea, a prescription for the patient (Col. 7 lines 39-52 prescription (diopter or refractive power) calculated from curvature); and displaying the prescription on a display of a vision screening device (Figure 2 display 32, Col. 7 lines 53-59 readings are displayed). Shalon further teaches using corneal curvature to determine a prescription for the patient in order to what type of eye correction may be needed (Col. 7 lines 48-51) and is well-known in the art (Col. 1 lines 11-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Campbell by determining a prescription based on the measure corneal curvature as taught by Shalon in order to determine a prescription for the patient in order to what type of eye correction may be needed (Shalon Col. 7 lines 48-51) and is well-known in the art (Shalon Col. 1 lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 9, Campbell teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Campbell fails to teach a display unit; the memory further storing instructions that, when executed by the processing unit, cause the vision screening device to: determine, based at least partly on the curvature of the cornea, a prescription for the patient; and display the prescription on the display unit. However, Shalon is related to Campbell with respect to a system to measure corneal curvature (Figure 1 keratometer 10) and teaches a display unit (Figure 2 display 32);
the memory further storing instructions (Col. 8 lines 46-52 instructions executed by processor are stored in memory) that, when executed by the processing unit, cause the vision screening device to:
determine, based at least partly on the curvature of the cornea, a prescription for the patient (Col. 7 lines 39-52 prescription (diopter or refractive power) calculated from curvature); and
display the prescription on the display unit (Figure 2 display 32, Col. 7 lines 53-59 readings are displayed). Shalon further teaches using corneal curvature to determine a prescription for the patient in order to what type of eye correction may be needed (Col. 7 lines 48-51) and is well-known in the art (Col. 1 lines 11-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Campbell by determining a prescription based on the measure corneal curvature as taught by Shalon in order to determine a prescription for the patient in order to what type of eye correction may be needed (Shalon Col. 7 lines 48-51) and is well-known in the art (Shalon Col. 1 lines 11-18).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Campbell (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2009/0002631) as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0160899 – hereinafter referred to as “Brown”).
Regarding claim 7, Campbell teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Campbell fails to teach sending to a remote server, information associated with the patient, the information including a recommendation associated with the patient. However, Brown is related to Campbell with respect to a device for measuring corneal curvature (Figure 1A) and teaches sending to a remote server, information associated with the patient, the information including a recommendation associated with the patient (Figure 3 server 304, [0153] results are sent to server 304). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system taught by Campbell by connecting it to a remote server as taught by Brown in order to store results outside the device and send results to other clients or medical professionals (Brown [0153]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Grierson et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,192,023) discloses a similar device to the instant invention for measuring corneal curvature by comparing reflections from the cornea to a reference image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights