DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 13 is 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 13 recites the limitation "detecting an edge between the iris and the pupil of the eye in the reference image and/or the current image" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner will interpret as “detecting an edge between an iris and a pupil of the eye in the reference image and/or the current image” and suggests amending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 13, 15-17, 19, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2015/0105759 Morley, hereinafter “Morley” (cited previously).
Regarding claim 1, Morley discloses an ophthalmological treatment device (Abstract) comprising a processor (Para 8 and Figure 1, element 118) and a camera (Para 23 and Figure 1, element 114) for determining a rotation of an eye of a person (Para 4, 6, and 10), the processor configured to: receive a reference image of the eye (Para 23; pre-treatment image), the reference image having been recorded with the person in an upright position (Para 23 and see Para 4; “Generally speaking, diagnostic imaging for treatment planning is performed with the patient in an upright position while surgery is performed with the patient lying down”) by a separate diagnostic device (Para 23 and 4; the image is taken prior to the therapy, it is assumed another camera is used); record, using the camera, a current image of the eye (Para 23; the second image), the current image being recorded with the person in a reclined position (Para 23 and 4; “Generally speaking, diagnostic imaging for treatment planning is performed with the patient in an upright position while surgery is performed with the patient lying down”); and determine a rotation angle of the eye by comparing the reference image to the current image using a direct solver (Para 8, 10, 40, 45-46, 48 and Figure 2, elements 208 and 210) wherein the direct solver applies a pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters to both the entire reference image and the entire current image (Para 39 and 40-43); and wherein the processor is configured to determine the rotation angle by: generating a reference image output vector using the reference image and the pre- determined sequence of signal processing filters (Para 40-43); generating a current image output vector using the current image and the pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters (Para 40-43); and determining a distance between the reference image output vector and the current image output vector using a distance metric (Para 40-43; Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments. Refer first to Para 43 specifically, that states “At each angular location (x-coordinate) and cyclotorsion angle, scores are computed for different values of a radial offset (an offset applied to the y-coordinate) and note is taken…” this clearly shows the denotation of a vector to each image and a distance is clearly disclosed by stating “an offset applied to the y-coordinate” that determines the radial offset. Also refer to Para 48 that discloses lining up the two images “the cyclotorsion angle computed tells what value of angle in the topographer image was lined up with the zero angle in the treatment image” and determining the offset of the angle “this is equivalent to how the topographer image would be rotated to line up with the treatment image. This is the number needed, because treatment was planned in the frame of reference of the topographer image. Thus, for a cyclotorsion angle of 9.5 degrees, the compass defining the angular coordinate system on the laser system should be rotated by +9.5 degrees.” The angular coordinate system takes into account eh radial distance from the origin of the coordinate system in the XY plane; therefore it is inherently present that an offset distance is calculated to determine the angle of rotation; Examiner respectfully holds the rejection).
Regarding claim 2, Morley discloses the processor is further configured to control the ophthalmological treatment device using the rotation angle (Para 8, 10, and 51).
Regarding claim 3, Morley discloses the processor is further configured to rotate a treatment pattern of a laser about the rotation angle (Para 8 and 10), wherein the treatment pattern is configured for the eye of the person (Para 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 4, Morley discloses the rotation angle includes a cyclotorsion angle (Para 10 and 28).
Regarding claim 5, Morley discloses the direct solver is configured to determine the rotation angle using a pre-defined number of computational operations (Para 41-44).
Regarding claim 6, Morley discloses the processor (Para 8 and Figure 1, element 118) is configured to determine the rotation angle of the eye (Para 8) by: identifying one or more non-local features of the reference image and non- local features of the current image, and matching the one or more identified non-local features of the reference image to the one or more identified non-local features of the current image, respectively (Para 40-46 and Figure 2, elements 206, 208, and 210).
Regarding claim 8, Morley discloses the pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters comprises one or more of: a convolutional operator, an activation function, or a pooling function (Para 40-41; Gabor filter).
Regarding claim 13, Morley discloses the processor is further configured to pre-process the images (Para 38), wherein pre-processing comprises one or more of: detecting an edge between an iris and a pupil of the eye in the reference image and/or the current image (Para 38); detecting scleral blood vessels of the eye in the reference image and/or the current image; detecting a retina of the eye in the reference image and/or the current image; identifying a covered zone in the reference image, wherein the covered zone is a part of the eye covered by an eyelid (Para 37); unrolling the reference image and/or the current image using a polar transformation (Para 38); rescaling the reference image and/or the current image according to a detected pupil dilation in the reference image and/or the current image; image correcting the reference image and/or the current image by matching an exposure, a contrast, and/or a color; or resizing the reference image and/or the current image such that the reference image and the current image have a matching size.
Regarding claim 15, Morley discloses the processor is further configured to transmit the current image to a second ophthalmological treatment device (Para 23 and 24).
Regarding claim 16, Morley discloses a method for determining a rotation of an eye of a person (Abstract; Para 4, 6, and 10) comprising a processor of an ophthalmological treatment device (Para 8 and Figure 1, element 118) performing the steps of: receiving a reference image of the eye (Para 23; pre-treatment image), the reference image having been recorded with the person in an upright position (Para 23 and see Para 4; “Generally speaking, diagnostic imaging for treatment planning is performed with the patient in an upright position while surgery is performed with the patient lying down”) by a separate diagnostic device (Para 23 and 4; the image is taken prior to the therapy, it is assumed another camera is used); recording, using a camera of the ophthalmological treatment device, a current image of the eye (Para 23; the second image), the current image being recorded with the person in a reclined position (Para 23 and 4; “Generally speaking, diagnostic imaging for treatment planning is performed with the patient in an upright position while surgery is performed with the patient lying down”); and determining a rotation angle of the eye by comparing the reference image to the current image, using a direct solver (Para 8, 10, 40, 45-46, 48 and Figure 2, elements 208 and 210) wherein the direct solver applies a pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters to both the entire reference image and the entire current image (Para 39 and 40-43); and determining the rotation angle by: generating a reference image output vector using the reference image and the pre- determined sequence of signal processing filters (Para 40-43); generating a current image output vector using the current image and the pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters (Para 40-43); and determining a distance between the reference image output vector and the current image output vector using a distance metric (Para 40-43; Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments. Refer first to Para 43 specifically, that states “At each angular location (x-coordinate) and cyclotorsion angle, scores are computed for different values of a radial offset (an offset applied to the y-coordinate) and note is taken…” this clearly shows the denotation of a vector to each image and a distance is clearly disclosed by stating “an offset applied to the y-coordinate” that determines the radial offset. Also refer to Para 48 that discloses lining up the two images “the cyclotorsion angle computed tells what value of angle in the topographer image was lined up with the zero angle in the treatment image” and determining the offset of the angle “this is equivalent to how the topographer image would be rotated to line up with the treatment image. This is the number needed, because treatment was planned in the frame of reference of the topographer image. Thus, for a cyclotorsion angle of 9.5 degrees, the compass defining the angular coordinate system on the laser system should be rotated by +9.5 degrees.” The angular coordinate system takes into account eh radial distance from the origin of the coordinate system in the XY plane; therefore, it is inherently present that an offset distance is calculated to determine the angle of rotation; Examiner respectfully holds the rejection).
Regarding claim 17, Morley discloses rotating a treatment pattern of a laser about the rotation angle (Para 8 and 10), which treatment pattern is configured for the eye of the person (Para 8 and 10).
Regarding claim 19, Morley discloses the pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters comprises one or more of a convolutional operator, an activation function, or a pooling function (Para 40-41; Gabor filter).
Regarding claim 23, Morley discloses a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer program code for controlling a processor of an ophthalmological treatment device (Para 8 and 24) to: receive a reference image of an eye (Para 23; pre-treatment image), the reference image having been recorded with a person in an upright position (Para 23 and see Para 4; “Generally speaking, diagnostic imaging for treatment planning is performed with the patient in an upright position while surgery is performed with the patient lying down”) by a separate diagnostic device (Para 23 and 4; the image is taken prior to the therapy, it is assumed another camera is used); record, using a camera, a current image of the eye (Para 23; the second image), the current image being recorded with the person in a reclined position (Para 23 and 4; “Generally speaking, diagnostic imaging for treatment planning is performed with the patient in an upright position while surgery is performed with the patient lying down”); and determine a rotation angle of the eye by comparing the reference image to the current image using a direct solver (Para 8, 10, 40, 45-46, 48 and Figure 2, elements 208 and 210) wherein the direct solver applies a pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters to both the entire reference image and the entire current image (Para 39 and 40-43); and determine the rotation angle by: generating a reference image output vector using the reference image and the pre- determined sequence of signal processing filters (Para 40-43); generating a current image output vector using the current image and the pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters (Para 40-43); and determining a distance between the reference image output vector and the current image output vector using a distance metric (Para 40-43; Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments. Refer first to Para 43 specifically, that states “At each angular location (x-coordinate) and cyclotorsion angle, scores are computed for different values of a radial offset (an offset applied to the y-coordinate) and note is taken…” this clearly shows the denotation of a vector to each image and a distance is clearly disclosed by stating “an offset applied to the y-coordinate” that determines the radial offset. Also refer to Para 48 that discloses lining up the two images “the cyclotorsion angle computed tells what value of angle in the topographer image was lined up with the zero angle in the treatment image” and determining the offset of the angle “this is equivalent to how the topographer image would be rotated to line up with the treatment image. This is the number needed, because treatment was planned in the frame of reference of the topographer image. Thus, for a cyclotorsion angle of 9.5 degrees, the compass defining the angular coordinate system on the laser system should be rotated by +9.5 degrees.” The angular coordinate system takes into account eh radial distance from the origin of the coordinate system in the XY plane; therefore it is inherently present that an offset distance is calculated to determine the angle of rotation; Examiner respectfully holds the rejection).
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(s) 9-11 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0105759 Morley, hereinafter “Morley”, in view of CN 111616800 Wang et al., hereinafter “Wang” (cited previously).
Regarding claim 9, Morley discloses the pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters (Para 39 and 40-41).
Morley does not disclose part of a neural network.
However, Wang discloses an ophthalmic surgery navigation system (Para 2) that accounts for eye rotation (Para 4) and teaches part of a neural network (Para 41 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a neural network as taught by Wang, in the invention of Morley, in order to perform correlation of the two images using learned data (Wang; Para 41-42).
Regarding claim 10, Morley discloses all the limitations of claim 9.
Morley does not disclose the neural network is trained to determine the rotation angle using supervised learning and a training dataset, wherein the training dataset comprises a plurality of training reference images, a plurality of corresponding training current images, and a plurality of corresponding pre-defined rotation angles.
However, Wang teaches the neural network is trained to determine the rotation angle using supervised learning and a training dataset (Para 51-52, see also Para 41), wherein the training dataset comprises a plurality of training reference images, a plurality of corresponding training current images, and a plurality of corresponding pre-defined rotation angles (Para 51-52, see also Para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a neural network as taught by Wang, in the invention of Morley, in order to perform correlation of the two images using learned data (Wang; Para 41-42).
Regarding claim 11, Morley discloses receive the reference image as an input and to generate a reference image output vector (Para 40-43); and receive the current image as an input and to generate a current image output vector (Para 40-43); wherein the processor is configured to determine the rotation angle using the reference image output vector, the current image output vector (Para 40-43), and a distance metric (Para 40-43).
Morley does not disclose a first neural network and a second neural network both having identical architecture and parameters, the first neural network configured to receive the reference image as an input and to generate a reference image output vector, and the second neural network configured to receive the current image as an input and to generate a current image output vector, wherein the processor is configured to determine the rotation angle using the reference image output vector, the current image output vector, and a distance metric.
However, Wang teaches a first neural network and a second neural network both having identical architecture and parameters (Para 51-52, see also Para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a neural network as taught by Wang, in the invention of Morley, in order to perform correlation of the two images using learned data (Wang; Para 41-42).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have included any number of neural networks form Wang because Applicant has not disclosed that the number of neural networks provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 [R-10.2019], section VI.B “REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS”). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would expect Wang’s device, to perform equally as well as the applicant’s invention in terms of providing neural network that uses learnt data to execute a method.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Wang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Morley and Wang.
Regarding claim 20, Morley discloses the pre-determined sequence of signal processing filters (Para 39 and 40-41).
Morley does not disclose part of a neural network.
However, Wang discloses an ophthalmic surgery navigation system (Para 2) that accounts for eye rotation (Para 4) and teaches part of a neural network (Para 41 and 42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a neural network as taught by Wang, in the invention of Morley, in order to perform correlation of the two images using learned data (Wang; Para 41-42).
Regarding claim 21, Morley discloses all the limitations of claim 20.
Morley does not disclose the neural network is trained to determine the rotation angle using supervised learning and a training dataset, wherein the training dataset comprises a plurality of training reference images, a plurality of corresponding training current images, and a plurality of corresponding pre-defined rotation angles.
However, Wang teaches the neural network is trained to determine the rotation angle using supervised learning and a training dataset (Para 51-52, see also Para 41), wherein the training dataset comprises a plurality of training reference images, a plurality of corresponding training current images, and a plurality of corresponding pre-defined rotation angles (Para 51-52, see also Para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a neural network as taught by Wang, in the invention of Morley, in order to perform correlation of the two images using learned data (Wang; Para 41-42).
Regarding claim 22, Morley discloses receive the reference image as an input and to generate a reference image output vector (Para 40-43); and receive the current image as an input and to generate a current image output vector (Para 40-43); wherein the processor is configured to determine the rotation angle using the reference image output vector, the current image output vector (Para 40-43), and a distance metric (Para 40-43).
Morley does not disclose a first neural network and a second neural network both having identical architecture and parameters, the first neural network configured to receive the reference image as an input and to generate a reference image output vector, and the second neural network configured to receive the current image as an input and to generate a current image output vector, wherein the processor is configured to determine the rotation angle using the reference image output vector, the current image output vector, and a distance metric.
However, Wang teaches a first neural network and a second neural network both having identical architecture and parameters (Para 51-52, see also Para 41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a neural network as taught by Wang, in the invention of Morley, in order to perform correlation of the two images using learned data (Wang; Para 41-42).
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have included any number of neural networks from Wang because Applicant has not disclosed that the number of neural networks provide an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem over the prior art (see MPEP 2144.04 [R-10.2019], section VI.B “REVERSAL, DUPLICATION, OR REARRANGEMENT OF PARTS”). One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would expect Wang’s device, to perform equally as well as the applicant’s invention in terms of providing neural network that uses learnt data to execute a method.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to modify Wang to obtain the invention as specified in claim 11, because such a modification would have been considered a mere design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art of Morley and Wang.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2015/0105759 Morley, hereinafter “Morley”, in view of WO 2017/191487 Abraham et al., hereinafter “Abraham” (cited previously).
Regarding claim 14, Morley discloses the processor (Para 8 and Figure 1, element 118).
Morley does not disclose receive a color reference image and/or an infrared reference image; and record, using the camera, a color current image and/or an infrared current image.
However, Abraham discloses a method for eye laser surgery that includes aligning and overlaying a surgical image (Abstract) while accounting for the cyclotorsion angle (Para 20) and teaches receive a color reference image and/or an infrared reference image (Para 20); and record, using the camera, a color current image and/or an infrared current image (Para 20 and 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed receiving a colored image as taught by Abraham, in the invention of Morley, in order to assist with aligning the two images to show contrast between the colors (Abraham; Para 26).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Refer to rejection above for arguments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Carl Layno can be reached on (571) 272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796