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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-13, 18, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drew et al. (WO 2019/001928 A1), hereinafter “Drew”, in view of Pamplona et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0172406), hereinafter “Pamplona”.
Regarding claim 1, Drew discloses an apparatus (100) for corneal topography measurement (Pg. 12, Lines 1-4), comprising: a panel (110) configured to releasably couple to a mobile device (Pg. 23, Lines 11-18), wherein the panel (110) is further configured to (a) project a light pattern onto a cornea of an eye to generate a reflected light pattern and (b) aid transmission of the reflected light pattern from the cornea to an imaging device (111) on the mobile device for generating a plurality of light signals (Pg. 23, Line 35 – Pg. 24, Line 20), wherein an optical axis of the imaging device (111) is offset from (i) a patterned region or (ii) an illumination source on the panel (see Figs. 1, 3, 4). Drew discloses the claimed invention except for wherein the panel comprises a plurality of scattering elements on a surface of the panel, and wherein the plurality of scattering elements reflects a light source to generate the light pattern. In the same field of endeavor, Pamplona discloses wherein the panel comprises a plurality of scattering elements on a surface of the panel, and wherein the plurality of scattering elements reflects a light source to generate the light pattern (see Figs. 5A-C, Paragraphs 64-67, 69). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Drew with wherein the panel comprises a plurality of scattering elements on a surface of the panel, and wherein the plurality of scattering elements reflects a light source to generate the light pattern of Pamplona for the purpose of the visual features reflecting light in a desirable way (Paragraph 64, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 2, Drew discloses wherein the offset between the optical axis of the imaging device and the pattern region or the illumination source on the panel is from (see Figs. 1, 3, 4). Drew and Pamplona disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify about 1mm to about 10mm. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). This range is contingent upon the size of the mobile device used and the desired pattern used (see Pg. 8, Lines 37-38, Pg. 17, Lines 1-13). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Drew and Pamplona with about 1mm to about 10mm for the purpose of providing rapid and repeatable eye inspection using an automated and simpler method (Abstract of Drew).
Regarding claim 3, Drew discloses wherein the offset between the optical axis of the imaging device and the pattern region or the illumination source on the panel is from (see Figs. 1, 3). Drew and Pamplona disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify about 5 degrees to about 360 degrees. It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Drew and Pamplona with about 5 degrees to about 360 degrees for the purpose of providing rapid and repeatable eye inspection using an automated and simpler method (Abstract of Drew).
Regarding claim 4, Drew further discloses wherein the panel (110) is configured to serve as a protective casing for the mobile device (see Figs. 1, 4).
Regarding claim 5, Drew further discloses wherein the panel light pattern comprises a plurality of lines (Pg. 4, Lines 36-39).
Regarding claim 6, Drew further discloses wherein the plurality of lines is linear (Pg. 4, Lines 36-39).
Regarding claim 7, Drew further discloses wherein the plurality of lines is circular or radial (Pg. 4, Lines 36-39).
Regarding claim 8, Drew further discloses wherein the panel (110) comprises a quick release mechanism that enables the panel to be releasably coupled to the mobile device (Pg. 8, Lines 39-41, Pg. 13, Lines 15-20).
Regarding claim 9, Drew discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify wherein the quick release mechanism comprises a snap- fit. Although this feature is well known in the art, Pamplona is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Pamplona discloses wherein the quick release mechanism comprises a snap- fit (Paragraph 42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Drew with wherein the quick release mechanism comprises a snap- fit of Pamplona for the purpose of providing a secure attachment (Paragraph 42).
Regarding claim 11, Drew further discloses wherein the panel is transparent or translucent (Pg. 17, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Drew discloses wherein the panel has an absorption coefficient of about (Pg. 4, Line 33 – Pg. 5, Line 20). Drew and Pamplona disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify 1cm^-1 to about 10cm^-1. The absorption coefficient is contingent upon the programmed pattern of the panel (see Pg. 4, Line 33 – Pg. 5, Line 20). It has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Drew and Pamplona with 1cm^-1 to about 10cm^-1 for the purpose of providing rapid and repeatable eye inspection using an automated and simpler method (Abstract of Drew).
Regarding claim 13, Drew further discloses wherein the plurality of lines is opaque (Pg. 17, Lines 4-13).
Regarding claim 18, Drew discloses a method of measuring corneal topography (Pg. 12, Lines 1-4), comprising:(a) providing a panel (110) having a plurality of lines; (b) coupling the panel to a mobile device in a configuration such that an optical axis of an imaging device (111) on the mobile device is offset from a patterned region on the panel or an illumination source on the panel (see Figs. 1, 3, 4, Pg. 23, Lines 11-18); (c) placing the panel coupled to the mobile device in proximity to an eye of a subject (see Fig. 1); (d) using the panel and the illumination source to project a light pattern onto the cornea to generate a reflected light pattern (Pg. 23, Line 35 – Pg. 24, Line 20); (e) using the imaging device on the mobile device to receive the reflected light pattern to generate a plurality of light signals (Pg. 23, Line 35 – Pg. 24, Line 20); and (f) generating a topography map of the cornea based at least in part on the plurality of light signals (Pg. 23, Line 35 – Pg. 24, Line 20). Drew discloses the claimed invention except for and a plurality of scattering elements on a surface of the panel, wherein the plurality of scattering elements reflects the illumination source to generate the reflected light pattern. In the same field of endeavor, Pamplona discloses and a plurality of scattering elements on a surface of the panel, wherein the plurality of scattering elements reflects the illumination source to generate the reflected light pattern (see Figs. 5A-C, Paragraphs 64-67, 69). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Drew with and a plurality of scattering elements on a surface of the panel, wherein the plurality of scattering elements reflects the illumination source to generate the reflected light pattern of Pamplona for the purpose of the visual features reflecting light in a desirable way (Paragraph 64, Lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, Drew further discloses wherein the plurality of lines on the panel is linear (Pg. 4, Lines 36-39).
Regarding claim 21, Drew further discloses wherein the plurality of lines on the panel is circular or radial (Pg. 4, Lines 36-39).
Claims 14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drew (WO 2019/001928 A1) in view of Pamplona (USPG Pub No. 2017/0172406) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nabhan (USPG Pub No. 2018/0092534).
Regarding claim 14, Drew discloses a system comprising: the apparatus of claim 1 (see Figs. 1, 3, 4); and one or more processors configured to process the plurality of light signals by (Pg. 11, Line 39 – Pg. 12, Line 13). Drew and Pamplona disclose the claimed invention except for (i) comparing the projected light pattern to the reflected light pattern to produce a two- dimensional elevation gradient, and (ii) using the two-dimensional elevation gradient to generate a three-dimensional topographic map of the cornea. In the same field of endeavor, Nabhan discloses (i) comparing the projected light pattern to the reflected light pattern to produce a two- dimensional elevation gradient (Paragraph 43), and (ii) using the two-dimensional elevation gradient to generate a three-dimensional topographic map of the cornea (Paragraph 43). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Drew and Pamplona with (i) comparing the projected light pattern to the reflected light pattern to produce a two- dimensional elevation gradient, and (ii) using the two-dimensional elevation gradient to generate a three-dimensional topographic map of the cornea of Nabhan for the purpose of providing a more affordable and portable method of diagnosing and monitoring abnormalities of the eye (Paragraph 6).
Regarding claim 16, Drew further discloses wherein the one or more processors are located on a server remote from the mobile device (Pg. 9, Lines 2-5).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drew (WO 2019/001928 A1) in view of Pamplona (USPG Pub No. 2017/0172406) and Nabhan (USPG Pub No. 2018/0092534) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Limon (USPG Pub No. 2021/0401282).
Regarding claim 17, Drew discloses wherein the system further comprises the mobile device (Pg. 8, Lines 37-38). Drew, Pamplona and Nabhan teach the system set forth above for claim 14 except for and wherein the mobile device comprises a depth sensor configured to measure a distance from the cornea to the imaging device. Although this feature is well known in the art, Limon is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Limon discloses and wherein the mobile device comprises a depth sensor configured to measure a distance from the cornea to the imaging device (Paragraphs 70, 77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Drew, Pamplona and Nabhan with and wherein the mobile device comprises a depth sensor configured to measure a distance from the cornea to the imaging device of Limon for the purpose of providing distance measurements (Paragraph 77).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drew (WO 2019/001928 A1) in view of Pamplona (USPG Pub No. 2017/0172406) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Limon (USPG Pub No. 2021/0401282)
Regarding claim 19, Drew and Pamplona disclose the claimed invention except for wherein (e) further comprises using a depth sensor on the mobile device to detect a distance between the panel and the eye of the subject. Although this feature is well known in the art, Limon is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Limon discloses wherein (e) further comprises using a depth sensor on the mobile device to detect a distance between the panel and the eye of the subject (Paragraphs 70, 77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Drew and Pamplona with wherein (e) further comprises using a depth sensor on the mobile device to detect a distance between the panel and the eye of the subject of Limon for the purpose of providing distance measurements (Paragraph 77).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Drew (WO 2019/001928 A1) in view of Pamplona (USPG Pub No. 2017/0172406) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Wallace et al. (USPG Pub No. 2017/0042421), hereinafter “Wallace”.
Regarding claim 22, Drew and Pamplona disclose the claimed invention except for wherein (e) further comprises rotating the imaging device as the imaging device is receiving the reflected light pattern. In the same field of endeavor, Wallace discloses wherein (e) further comprises rotating the imaging device as the imaging device is receiving the reflected light pattern (Paragraphs 44, 74). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Drew and Pamplona with wherein (e) further comprises rotating the imaging device as the imaging device is receiving the reflected light pattern of Wallace for the purpose of orienting the imaging device as needed and accounting for said orientation (Paragraph 74).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/04/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Drew discloses an apparatus for corneal topography measurement and method of measuring corneal topography as recited in independent claims 1 and 18 (see Figs. 1, 3, 4 and the corresponding description), except for the panel comprising a plurality of scattering elements on a surface, and the plurality of scattering elements reflect a light source to generate the light pattern. Pamplona cures these deficiencies. Figs. 5A-C, and Paragraphs 64-67, 69 of Pamplona teach a panel with a plurality of scattering elements (542/544/546) on a surface that reflect a light source (520) in order to generate a visual feature, interpreted as the light pattern, for the purpose of providing visual features reflecting light in a desirable way (see Paragraph 64, Lines 1-3 of Pamplona). For these reasons, the claims remain rejected.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571 272-2333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 1/10/2026