DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10, in the reply filed on 6/23/26 is acknowledged.
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 1, 2, 5 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Abou Shousha et al. (US 10,468,142).
Regarding claim 1, Abou Shousha (figures 1A-1J; col. 10, line 49 – col. 11, line 21), discloses a computer-based method of classifying corneal shape abnormalities, the method comprising generating at least two corneal maps of a subject's cornea or a sublayer, wherein the at least two corneal maps (col. 11, lines 1-4) include at least two of a corneal topography map, a corneal thickness map, and a corneal reflectance map, providing the at least two corneal maps as inputs to an artificial intelligence model (col. 10, lines 49-57) comprising a neural network, obtaining, via the neural network, one or more outputs related to presence of at least one condition, wherein the one or more outputs are generated based on the at least two corneal maps, and classifying the subject's cornea based on the one or more outputs (col. 11, lines 4-21).
Regarding claim 2, Abou Shousha further discloses wherein the at least two corneal maps are generated based on an optical coherence tomography dataset (col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 4).
Regarding claim 5, Abou Shousha further discloses wherein the corneal topography map is an elevation map of an anterior surface, a posterior surface, or a sub-epithelial surface of the cornea (col. 10, line 66 – col. 11, line 4).
Regarding claim 8, Abou Shousha further discloses wherein the corneal thickness map included in the inputs includes one or more of an overall corneal thickness map, a corneal epithelial thickness map, a corneal stromal thickness map, a Descemet's layers thickness map, or a corneal endothelial thickness map (col. 11, lines 1-21).
Regarding claim 9, Abou Shousha further discloses wherein the inputs indicate reflectance variation at different depths of corneal thickness, and wherein the one or more outputs include an indication of one or more depth-dependent irregularities in reflectance intensity (col. 11, lines 1-21).
Regarding claim 10, Abou Shousha further discloses wherein the subject's cornea is classified as normal, keratoconic, or cornea with Fuch's dystrophy based on the one or more outputs (see fig. 5 – Fuch’s Dystrophy).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abou Shousha et al. (US 10,468,142), as applied in claim 1, in view of Abou Shousha et al. (US 2020/0035362).
Regarding claim 3, Abou Shousha discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the neural network includes a convolutional neural network. Within the same field of endeavor, Abou Shousha (US 2020/0035362) discloses the teaching that wherein the neural network includes a convolutional neural network ([0135]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement a convolutional neural network for application specific purpose.
Claims 4, 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abou Shousha et al. (US 10,468,142), as applied in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Abou Shousha further discloses wherein the corneal topography map is a map of an anterior surface, a posterior surface, or a sub-epithelial surface of the cornea (col. 11, lines 1-4). Abou Shousha discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the corneal topography map is a mean curvature map. However, different types of corneal maps are well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the mean curvature map for application specific purpose.
Regarding claim 6, Abou Shousha further discloses wherein the corneal topography map is a map of an anterior surface, a posterior surface, or a sub-epithelial surface of the cornea (col. 11, lines 1-4). Abou Shousha discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the corneal topography map is an axial power map. However, different types of corneal maps are well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the axial power map for application specific purpose.
Regarding claim 7, Abou Shousha further discloses wherein the corneal topography map is a map of an anterior surface, a posterior surface, or a sub-epithelial surface of the cornea (col. 11, lines 1-4). Abou Shousha discloses all the claimed limitations except wherein the corneal topography map is a tangential power map. However, different types of corneal maps are well within the knowledge of one skilled in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to implement the tangential power map for application specific purpose.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACK DINH whose telephone number is (571)272-2327. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am-5pm.
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.
/JACK DINH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10/5/26
