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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/02/2026 has been entered.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/02/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 02/02/2026 have been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 1 6-9 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Neal et al. (2018/0064338, of record) in view Hardenberg (US 6,728,401) in view of Kushida et al. (US 2021/0224997).
Regarding claim 1, Neal discloses an ophthalmic information processing apparatus (Figure 1) comprising:
processing circuitry ([0034] discloses: 1160, controller/processor) configured as an identifying unit ([0026] discloses: 1160, controller, can receive image data and process the image data to control the focal length of 1169, variable focal length lens, and to measure refraction of the eye; therefore considered to be an identifying unit) to identify a correction region ([0034] discloses: 101, retina of the eye; Examiner notes that the retina of the image of the eye is considered the correction region) in an image of a subject’s eye, the image being obtained using an ophthalmic apparatus ([0033] discloses: to correct aberrations of the eye; therefore considered pertaining to the eye, i.e., an ophthalmic apparatus) based on a dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: 1160, controller/processor, controls or adjusts focal length to provide a desired characteristic to the light received 1155, wavefront sensor from 101, retina of the eye; [0031] discloses: 1169, variable focal lens, comprises a pre-correction system which compensates the prob light beam, for aberrations in the eye by adding a desired pre-correction for the injected probe light beam; Examiner notes that these corrections are considered to be done using focal length, the inverse of dioptric power; therefore considered to be adjusted using dioptric power); and
the processing circuitry further configured as a correction unit ([0095] discloses: pre-correction unit) to correct a luminance ([0095] discloses: pre-correction unit, compensates 153, probe light beam, to be injected into 101, eye for aberrations; therefore considered to correct luminance via compensation) in the correction region identified by the identifying unit ([0031] discloses: 1169, variable focal lens, comprises a pre-correction system which compensates the prob light beam, for aberrations in the eye, that is considered to contain the correction region, by adding a desired pre-correction for the injected probe light beam), based on a correction amount corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: 1160, controller/processor, controls or adjusts focal length to provide a desired characteristic to the light received 1155, wavefront sensor from 101, retina of the eye; Examiner notes that these corrections are considered to be done using focal length, the inverse of dioptric power; therefore considered to be adjusted using dioptric power), wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power ([0034]-[0035] discloses: correction amount corresponding to dioptric power; Examiner notes that “each dioptric power” does not constitute all dioptric powers, only the ones relevant to the adjustment apparatus, therefore Neal is considered to identify correction region for each dioptric power based on a correction amount corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject’s eye).
Neal fails to disclose an ophthalmic apparatus to remove an artifact of the image, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power, the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Neal and Hardenberg are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hardenberg teaches an apparatus to remove an artifact of the image (in at least abstract teaches: color correction such as red-eye correction), the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position (in at least abstract teaches: processes image pixel by pixel and selections portion thereof, therefore considered calculated a position), a shape (in at least abstract teaches: blob analysis techniques applied; therefore considered shape analysis), and an intensity (in at least abstract teaches: colorimetric distance, therefore considered an intensity) of the artifact in the image in advance (Examiner notes that the invention of Hardenberg: computes mask, identifies artifact region and then modified luminance, therefore considered to obtain information in advance), the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region (Col. 4, lines 45-50 teach: contrast stretching, therefore considered luminance correction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Hardenberg and provide an apparatus to remove an artifact of the image, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power. Doing so would allow for improved visibility of ocular structures by reducing image artifacts that interfere with accurate analysis and measurement of the eye.
Neal fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Neal and Kushida are related because both disclose optical systems.
Kushida teaches an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information (Examiner notes that shared information is considered the first artifact information) and second artifact information (Examiner notes that the non-shared information is considered the second artifact information), the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type ([0400] teaches: data using ophthalmic apparatus of the same model and same kind) and same optical system configuration ([0400] teaches: data using ophthalmic apparatus of the same model and same kind), the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus ([0359]-[0361] teaches: incremental learning, models can be updated, region-specific parameters can be used; Examiner notes that this is considered to be site specific model selection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Kushida and provide an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Doing so would allow for consistent performance across devices of the same model type to be shared, and apparatus specific information can be stored locally, thereby improving the overall reliability and accuracy of the ophthalmic processing.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein: the processing circuitry is further configured as an analysis region identifying unit configured to identify an analysis region shifted from a reference position in the image by a displacement of the reference position varying in accordance with the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: 1160, controller, processes wavefront sensor data to determine a focal length of 1169 lens, and that this focal length is used to identify a correction region in the image, with focal power being the inverse of dioptric power), based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye and an optical condition in an optical system of the ophthalmic apparatus ([0026] discloses: 1160, controller, receives image data and uses it along with the focal length and optical characteristics of light received); and the processing circuitry is further configured as a correction amount identifying unit configured to identify the correction amount in the image based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0031] discloses: a pre-correction system that adds pre-correction based on a correction amount corresponding to the focal length to the subjects eye, and therefore the dioptric power of the subjects eye), wherein the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the correction amount ([0095] discloses: that the pre-correction unit corrects luminance via compensation for a probe light beam injected into the eye), the correction region being identified in the analysis region by the identifying unit ([0034] and [0031] discloses: where the correction region is associated with dioptric-dependent image processing), the analysis region being identified by the analysis region identifying unit ([0034] and [0031] discloses: that the correction region is used for luminance correction is identified based on focal length, and is used consistently across both identification and correction functions).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing apparatus of claim 1, wherein the ophthalmic apparatus includes a focusing lens that is movable along an optical axis of an optical system ([0035] discloses: a focusing lens), the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject's eye based on a position on the optical axis of the focusing lens ([0035] discloses: proper or desired adjusted focal length used to create an image of the light incident upon the retina; Examiner notes that the incident light is considered to create the correction region, as a negative bi-product of image formation), and the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the position on the optical axis of the focusing lens (Examiner notes that the position of the focusing lens is based on the focal length of the image of the retina, and the correction unit is considered to correct the luminance based on the position of the focusing lens that causes the position of the correction area).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Neal discloses an ophthalmic apparatus, comprising: an illumination optical system configured to irradiate illumination light onto the subject's eye ([0095] discloses: a probe light beam injected into the eye for measurement purposes); an imaging optical system configured to acquire an image of the subject's eye by receiving returning of the illumination light from the subject's eye ([0026] discloses: image data received from light interacting with retina); and an ophthalmic information processing apparatus configured to remove an artifact of the image acquired by the imaging optical system ([0034] discloses: processing circuity that identifies a correction region in the image based on focal length; [0095] discloses: pre-correction of luminance in the region using compensation), wherein the ophthalmic information processing apparatus comprising: an identifying circuit configured to identify a correction region in the image of the subject’s eye, the image being obtained using the ophthalmic apparatus ([0033] discloses: to correct aberrations of the eye; therefore considered pertaining to the eye, i.e., an ophthalmic apparatus), based on a dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: identifying region based on focal length; Examiner notes that focal length is the inverse of dioptric power); and a correction circuit configured to correct a luminance in the correction region identified by the identifying circuit to remove the artifact of the image, based on a correction amount corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: 1160, controller/processor, controls or adjusts focal length to provide a desired characteristic to the light received 1155, wavefront sensor from 101, retina of the eye; Examiner notes that these corrections are considered to be done using focal length, the inverse of dioptric power; therefore considered to be adjusted using dioptric power), wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power ([0034]-[0035] discloses: correction amount corresponding to dioptric power; Examiner notes that “each dioptric power” does not constitute all dioptric powers, only the ones relevant to the adjustment apparatus, therefore Neal is considered to identify correction region for each dioptric power based on a correction amount corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject’s eye).
Neal fails to disclose an ophthalmic apparatus to remove an artifact of the image, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power, the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Neal and Hardenberg are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hardenberg teaches an apparatus to remove an artifact of the image (in at least abstract teaches: color correction such as red-eye correction), the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position (in at least abstract teaches: processes image pixel by pixel and selections portion thereof, therefore considered calculated a position), a shape (in at least abstract teaches: blob analysis techniques applied; therefore considered shape analysis), and an intensity (in at least abstract teaches: colorimetric distance, therefore considered an intensity) of the artifact in the image in advance (Examiner notes that the invention of Hardenberg: computes mask, identifies artifact region and then modified luminance, therefore considered to obtain information in advance), the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region (Col. 4, lines 45-50 teach: contrast stretching, therefore considered luminance correction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Hardenberg and provide an apparatus to remove an artifact of the image, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power. Doing so would allow for improved visibility of ocular structures by reducing image artifacts that interfere with accurate analysis and measurement of the eye.
Neal fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Neal and Kushida are related because both disclose optical systems.
Kushida teaches an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information (Examiner notes that shared information is considered the first artifact information) and second artifact information (Examiner notes that the non-shared information is considered the second artifact information), the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type ([0400] teaches: data using ophthalmic apparatus of the same model and same kind) and same optical system configuration ([0400] teaches: data using ophthalmic apparatus of the same model and same kind), the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus ([0359]-[0361] teaches: incremental learning, models can be updated, region-specific parameters can be used; Examiner notes that this is considered to be site specific model selection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Kushida and provide an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Doing so would allow for consistent performance across devices of the same model type to be shared, and apparatus specific information can be stored locally, thereby improving the overall reliability and accuracy of the ophthalmic processing.
Regarding claim 9, the modified Neal disclose an ophthalmic information processing method ([0034] discloses: processing circuitry, that identifies a correction region based on focal length to reduce image artifacts), comprising: an identifying step of identifying a correction region in an image of a subject’s eye, the image being obtained by an ophthalmic apparatus ([0033] discloses: to correct aberrations of the eye; therefore considered pertaining to the eye, i.e., an ophthalmic apparatus), based on a dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: identifying a correction region in the image based on focal length, considered to be dioptric power, of the subjects eye using focal length derived from wavefront sensor data); and a correction step of correcting a luminance in the correction region identified in the identifying step ([0095] discloses: pre-correction unit compensates the luminance of the probe light beam injected into the eye, thereby correcting the luminance in the identified correction region, based on a correction amount corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: 1160, controller/processor, controls or adjusts focal length to provide a desired characteristic to the light received 1155, wavefront sensor from 101, retina of the eye; Examiner notes that these corrections are considered to be done using focal length, the inverse of dioptric power; therefore considered to be adjusted using dioptric power), wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power ([0034]-[0035] discloses: correction amount corresponding to dioptric power; Examiner notes that “each dioptric power” does not constitute all dioptric powers, only the ones relevant to the adjustment apparatus, therefore Neal is considered to identify correction region for each dioptric power based on a correction amount corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject’s eye).
Neal fails to disclose an ophthalmic apparatus to remove an artifact of the image, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power, the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Neal and Hardenberg are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hardenberg teaches an apparatus to remove an artifact of the image (in at least abstract teaches: color correction such as red-eye correction), the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position (in at least abstract teaches: processes image pixel by pixel and selections portion thereof, therefore considered calculated a position), a shape (in at least abstract teaches: blob analysis techniques applied; therefore considered shape analysis), and an intensity (in at least abstract teaches: colorimetric distance, therefore considered an intensity) of the artifact in the image in advance (Examiner notes that the invention of Hardenberg: computes mask, identifies artifact region and then modified luminance, therefore considered to obtain information in advance), the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region (Col. 4, lines 45-50 teach: contrast stretching, therefore considered luminance correction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Hardenberg and provide an apparatus to remove an artifact of the image, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power. Doing so would allow for improved visibility of ocular structures by reducing image artifacts that interfere with accurate analysis and measurement of the eye.
Neal fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Neal and Kushida are related because both disclose optical systems.
Kushida teaches an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information (Examiner notes that shared information is considered the first artifact information) and second artifact information (Examiner notes that the non-shared information is considered the second artifact information), the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type ([0400] teaches: data using ophthalmic apparatus of the same model and same kind) and same optical system configuration ([0400] teaches: data using ophthalmic apparatus of the same model and same kind), the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus ([0359]-[0361] teaches: incremental learning, models can be updated, region-specific parameters can be used; Examiner notes that this is considered to be site specific model selection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Kushida and provide an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Doing so would allow for consistent performance across devices of the same model type to be shared, and apparatus specific information can be stored locally, thereby improving the overall reliability and accuracy of the ophthalmic processing.
Regarding claim 14, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing method of claim 9, further comprising: an analysis region identifying step of identifying an analysis region shifted from a reference position in the image by a displacement of the reference position varying in accordance with the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: 1160, controller, processes wavefront sensor data to determine a focal length, and that focal length, is used to identify a correction region that is displaced in the image based on focal length variation), based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye and an optical condition in an optical system of the ophthalmic apparatus ([0026] discloses: 1160, controller, processes image data using both focal length and optical characteristics of the received light); and a correction amount identifying step of identifying the correction amount in the image based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0031] discloses: pre-correction system that adjusts based on a correction amount corresponding to the focal length and thus dioptric power), wherein the correction step is performed to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the correction amount ([0094] discloses: pre-correction unit, corrects luminance via compensation in the identified correction region using a correction amount), the correction region being identified in the analysis region in the identifying step ([0034] and [0031] disclose: that the same correction region, identified using focal length, is used for both identification and correction purposes), the analysis region being identified in the analysis region identifying step ([0034] discloses: image displacement and analysis region identification with focal length and optical conditions).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing method of claim 9, wherein the ophthalmic apparatus includes a focusing lens that is movable along an optical axis of an optical system ([0035] discloses: a focusing lens, whose focal length can be adjusted and which is positioned along the optical axis), the identifying step is performed to identify the correction region corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject's eye based on a position on the optical axis of the focusing lens ([0035] discloses: the adjusted focal length corresponds to the position of the focusing lens along the optical axis and is used to generate the image of the retina), and the correction step is performed to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the position on the optical axis of the focusing lens ([0095] discloses: luminance correction via pre-correction based on the probe light beam, with the correction region determined based on focal length, which varies with the position of the focusing lens).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Neal discloses a computer readable non-transitory recording medium in which a program for causing a computer to execute each step of an ophthalmic information processing method is recorded ([0034] discloses: processing circuitry, 1160, controller, configured to perform identifying and processing and recording and correction processes [0058] discloses: output can be recorded; Examiner notes that although the phrase “computer readable medium” is not explicitly used, under MPEP § 2114, the same structure that performs the method steps may be used to anticipate a computer-readable medium claim when it is capable of executing those steps), wherein the ophthalmic information processing method comprising: an identifying step of identifying a correction region in an image of a subject’s eye, the image being obtained by an ophthalmic apparatus ([0033] discloses: to correct aberrations of the eye; therefore considered pertaining to the eye, i.e., an ophthalmic apparatus), based on a dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: identifying a correction region in the image using focal length derived from wavefront sensor data);
and a correction step of correcting a luminance in the correction region identified in the identifying step to remove an artifact of the image corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0034] discloses: 1160, controller/processor, controls or adjusts focal length to provide a desired characteristic to the light received 1155, wavefront sensor from 101, retina of the eye; Examiner notes that these corrections are considered to be done using focal length, the inverse of dioptric power; therefore considered to be adjusted using dioptric power), wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power ([0034]-[0035] discloses: correction amount corresponding to dioptric power; Examiner notes that “each dioptric power” does not constitute all dioptric powers, only the ones relevant to the adjustment apparatus, therefore Neal is considered to identify correction region for each dioptric power based on a correction amount corresponding to the dioptric power of the subject’s eye).
Neal fails to disclose an ophthalmic apparatus to remove an artifact of the image, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power, the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Neal and Hardenberg are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hardenberg teaches an apparatus to remove an artifact of the image (in at least abstract teaches: color correction such as red-eye correction), the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position (in at least abstract teaches: processes image pixel by pixel and selections portion thereof, therefore considered calculated a position), a shape (in at least abstract teaches: blob analysis techniques applied; therefore considered shape analysis), and an intensity (in at least abstract teaches: colorimetric distance, therefore considered an intensity) of the artifact in the image in advance (Examiner notes that the invention of Hardenberg: computes mask, identifies artifact region and then modified luminance, therefore considered to obtain information in advance), the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region (Col. 4, lines 45-50 teach: contrast stretching, therefore considered luminance correction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Hardenberg and provide an apparatus to remove an artifact of the image, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power. Doing so would allow for improved visibility of ocular structures by reducing image artifacts that interfere with accurate analysis and measurement of the eye.
Neal fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Neal and Kushida are related because both disclose optical systems.
Kushida teaches an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information (Examiner notes that shared information is considered the first artifact information) and second artifact information (Examiner notes that the non-shared information is considered the second artifact information), the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type ([0400] teaches: data using ophthalmic apparatus of the same model and same kind) and same optical system configuration ([0400] teaches: data using ophthalmic apparatus of the same model and same kind), the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus ([0359]-[0361] teaches: incremental learning, models can be updated, region-specific parameters can be used; Examiner notes that this is considered to be site specific model selection).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Kushida and provide an apparatus wherein the artifact information includes first artifact information and second artifact information, the first artifact information being information that is shared in common between a plurality of ophthalmic apparatus having a same model type and same optical system configuration, the second artifact information being information specific to the ophthalmic apparatus. Doing so would allow for consistent performance across devices of the same model type to be shared, and apparatus specific information can be stored locally, thereby improving the overall reliability and accuracy of the ophthalmic processing.
Claims 2, 3, 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Neal et al. (2018/0064338, of record) in view Hardenberg (US 6,728,401) in view of Kushida et al. (US 2021/0224997), as applied to claim 1 and claim 9 above, in view of Kamal et al. (2023/0396883, of record) in further view of Tosa et al. (2008/0253622, of record).
Regarding claim 2, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing apparatus of claim 1.
Neil fails to disclose wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, and the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power. Neil and Kamal are related because both disclose optical system.
Kamal discloses an optical system wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region ([0041] teaches: artifact region) based on artifact information ([0041] teaches: shape and or pixel colors and intensities of the artifact region), the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position ([0041] teaches: artifact measured positional information), a shape ([0041] teaches: shape of artifact region), and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance ([0042] teaches: intensity of the artifact; see Figure 2 depicts: 204, detection, considered detection of the artifact followed by 208, repair, considered repair of the artifact; Examiner notes that the detection is considered to be done in advance of the repair).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Kamal and provide wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance. Doing so would allow for accurate and timely correction of artifacts in the image, thereby improving the overall functionality and efficiency of the optical system.
Tosa teaches wherein an optical system is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power and the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power ([0136] teaches: dioptric power correction, for each dioptric power).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Tosa and provide optical system is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power and the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power. Doing so would allow for dioptric-specific luminance correction to image quality for users with varying refractive errors, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing apparatus of claim 2.
Neal fails to disclose wherein the processing circuitry is further configured as an interpolator configured to interpolate artifact information of two or more dioptric powers based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye, the artifact information of two or more dioptric power being identified based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye, wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on interpolated artifact information obtained by the interpolator, and the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the interpolated artifact information. Neal and Lussier are related because both disclose optical systems.
Lussier teaches an optical system wherein the processing circuitry is further configured as an interpolator ([0154] teaches: interpolation function) configured to interpolate artifact information of two or more dioptric powers based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0149] teaches: position of focal plane derived therefrom the focal length of the users eye; Examiner notes that dioptric power is the inverse of focal length, the interpolation is considered to be done based on focal length and therefore the dioptric power), the artifact information of two or more dioptric power being identified based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0154] teaches: position of focal plane derived from focal length of users eye), wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on interpolated artifact information obtained by the interpolator ([0096] teaches: render content in different dioptric corrections in different viewing regions corresponding to respective eyes of the subject; therefore considered to identify the correction region based on the interpolation function of [0154]), and the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the interpolated artifact information ([0095] teaches: dioptric correction; [0154] teaches: pixel color value is chosen, depending on the value of the interpolation function).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Lussier and provide an optical system wherein the processing circuitry is further configured as an interpolator configured to interpolate artifact information of two or more dioptric powers based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye, the artifact information of two or more dioptric power being identified based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye, wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on interpolated artifact information obtained by the interpolator, and the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the interpolated artifact information. Doing so would allow for accurate luminance correction tailored to intermediate dioptric powers, thereby enhancing image quality for a broader range of users.
Regarding claim 10, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing method of claim 9.
Neal fails to disclose wherein the identifying step is performed to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance, and the correction step is performed to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power. Neil and Kamal are related because both disclose optical system.
Kamal teaches an optical system wherein the identifying step is performed to identify the correction region ([0041] teaches: artifact region) based on artifact information ([0041] teaches: shape and or pixel colors and intensities of the artifact region), the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position ([0041] teaches: artifact measured positional information), a shape ([0041] teaches: shape of artifact region), a shape([0041] teaches: shape of artifact region), and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance ([0042] teaches: intensity of the artifact; see Figure 2 depicts: 204, detection, considered detection of the artifact followed by 208, repair, considered repair of the artifact; Examiner notes that the detection is considered to be done in advance of the repair), and the correction step is performed to correct the luminance in the correction region ([0095] discloses: pre-correction unit, compensates 153, probe light beam, to be injected into 101, eye for aberrations; therefore considered to correct luminance via compensation).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Kamal and provide wherein the identifying unit is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information, the artifact information being obtained by calculating a position, a shape, and an intensity of the artifact in the image in advance. Doing so would allow for accurate and timely correction of artifacts in the image, thereby improving the overall functionality and efficiency of the optical system.
Tosa teaches wherein an optical system is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power and the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power ([0136] teaches: dioptric power correction, for each dioptric power).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Tosa and provide optical system is configured to identify the correction region based on artifact information for each dioptric power and the correction unit is configured to correct the luminance in the correction region, based on the artifact information for each dioptric power. Doing so would allow for dioptric-specific luminance correction to image quality for users with varying refractive errors, thereby improving the overall functionality and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 11, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing method of claim 10.
Neal fails to discloses a method further comprising an interpolation step of interpolating artifact information of two or more dioptric powers based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye, the artifact information of two or more dioptric power being identified based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye, wherein the identifying step is performed to identify the correction region based on interpolated artifact information obtained in the interpolation step, and the correction step is performed to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the interpolated artifact information. Neal and Lussier are related because both disclose optical systems.
Lussier teaches a method further comprising an interpolation step ([0154] teaches: interpolation function) of interpolating artifact information of two or more dioptric powers based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0149] teaches: position of focal plane derived therefrom the focal length of the users eye; Examiner notes that dioptric power is the inverse of focal length, the interpolation is considered to be done based on focal length and therefore the dioptric power), the artifact information of two or more dioptric power being identified based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye ([0154] teaches: position of focal plane derived from focal length of users eye), wherein the identifying step is performed to identify the correction region based on interpolated artifact information obtained in the interpolation step ([0096] teaches: render content in different dioptric corrections in different viewing regions corresponding to respective eyes of the subject; therefore considered to identify the correction region based on the interpolation function of [0154]), and the correction step is performed to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the interpolated artifact information ([0095] teaches: dioptric correction; [0154] teaches: pixel color value is chosen, depending on the value of the interpolation function).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Lussier and provide a method further comprising an interpolation step of interpolating artifact information of two or more dioptric powers based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye, the artifact information of two or more dioptric power being identified based on the dioptric power of the subject's eye, wherein the identifying step is performed to identify the correction region based on interpolated artifact information obtained in the interpolation step, and the correction step is performed to correct the luminance in the correction region based on the interpolated artifact information. Doing so would allow for accurate luminance correction tailored to intermediate dioptric powers, thereby enhancing image quality for a broader range of users.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Neal et al. (2018/0064338, of record) in view Hardenberg (US 6,728,401) in view of Kushida et al. (US 2021/0224997), as applied to claim 1 and claim 9 above, in view of Hsu et al. (11,885,959, of record).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing apparatus of claim 1.
Neal fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the artifact is a black dot shadow formed by a black dot provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction unit is configured to increase the luminance in the correction region. Neal and Hsu are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hsu teaches an apparatus wherein the artifact is a black dot shadow formed by a black dot provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction unit is configured to increase the luminance in the correction region (Col. 9 lines 63-65 and Col. 11 lines 52-54 discloses: compensation for potential ghost images using increased luminance of light; Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to apply a known solution for correcting ghost artifacts, such as luminance correction, to a black dot shadow, since both represent similar problems requiring the same type of correction in accordance with MPEP § 2143).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Hsu and provide an apparatus wherein the artifact is a black dot shadow formed by a black dot provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction unit is configured to increase the luminance in the correction region. Doing so would allow for improved visibility in affected regions, thereby enhancing overall image clarity and quality.
Regarding claim 12, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing method of claim 9.
Neal fails to disclose a method wherein the artifact is a black dot shadow formed by a black dot provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction step is performed to increase the luminance in the correction region. Neal and Hsu are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hsu teaches a method wherein the artifact is a black dot shadow formed by a black dot provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction step is performed to increase the luminance in the correction region (Col. 9 lines 63-65 and Col. 11 lines 52-54 discloses: compensation for potential ghost images using increased luminance of light; Examiner notes that it would have been obvious to apply a known solution for correcting ghost artifacts, such as luminance correction, to a black dot shadow, since both represent similar problems requiring the same type of correction in accordance with MPEP § 2143).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Hsu and provide a method wherein the artifact is a black dot shadow formed by a black dot provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction step is performed to increase the luminance in the correction region. Doing so would allow for improved visibility in affected regions, thereby enhancing overall image clarity and quality.
Claims 5 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Neal et al. (2018/0064338, of record) in view Hardenberg (US 6,728,401) in view of Kushida et al. (US 2021/0224997), as applied to claim 1 and claim 9 above, in view of Oyaizu (2014/0340635, of record).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing apparatus of claim 1.
Neal fails to disclose wherein the artifact is a center ghost formed by an objective lens provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction unit is configured to decrease the luminance in the correction region. Neal and Oyaizu are related because both disclose ophthalmologic apparatuses.
Oyaizu teaches disclose wherein the artifact is a center ghost formed by an objective lens provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction unit is configured to decrease the luminance in the correction region ([0095] teaches: pupil diameter is made smaller, considered decreasing luminance, thus the ghost may be eliminated; Examiner notes that this ghost is considered to be formed by an objective lens of the optical system; see Fig. 4B-4C, where R’, the ghost is considered to be the center ghost due to its location around the center of the eye; Examiner notes that while it is understood that drawings and figures may not necessarily be drawn to scale, certain design features can be inferred as intentional based on their depiction; specifically, the center location of the ghost artifact in Figure 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Oyaizu and provide wherein the artifact is a center ghost formed by an objective lens provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction unit is configured to decrease the luminance in the correction region. Doing so would allow for reduction or elimination of the visual artifact on the retinal image, thereby improving the clarity and accuracy of ophthalmic measurements or imaging.
Regarding claim 13, the modified Neal discloses the ophthalmic information processing method of claim 9.
Neal fails to disclose a method wherein the artifact is a center ghost formed by an objective lens provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction step is performed to decrease the luminance in the correction region. Neal and Oyaizu are related because both disclose ophthalmologic apparatuses.
Oyaizu teaches a method wherein the artifact is a center ghost formed by an objective lens provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction step is performed to decrease the luminance in the correction region ([0095] teaches: pupil diameter is made smaller, considered decreasing luminance, thus the ghost may be eliminated; Examiner notes that this ghost is considered to be formed by an objective lens of the optical system; see Fig. 4B-4C, where R’, the ghost is considered to be the center ghost due to its location around the center of the eye; Examiner notes that while it is understood that drawings and figures may not necessarily be drawn to scale, certain design features can be inferred as intentional based on their depiction; specifically, the center location of the ghost artifact in Figure 4B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Neal to incorporate the teachings of Oyaizu and provide a method wherein the artifact is a center ghost formed by an objective lens provided in the ophthalmic apparatus, and the correction step is performed to decrease the luminance in the correction region. Doing so would allow for reduction or elimination of the visual artifact on the retinal image, thereby improving the clarity and accuracy of ophthalmic measurements or imaging.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872