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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 112244757 A) in view of Munger (WO 2008037090 A1). An English machine translation has been provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 1, Cai discloses (see at least Fig 1, [0039]-[0061]) an optical detection system (Fig 1, [0039], ophthalmic measurement system), comprising: an optical detection apparatus (10), configured to perform an optical detection on a testee ([0043], OCT imaging of different paths of the eye to be tested); and an optical module, combined with the optical detection apparatus in a specific combination type ([0043], 10 includes an oblique angle anterior segment camera module, an iris camera module, a fixation optical module, a refractive index measurement module), comprising a light source (1901), a lens set (1801, 1903, 1407) and a reflecting mirror (1123), and the optical module being configured to provide additional auxiliary light source projection to improve a condition for the testee to gaze and observe patterns (Fig 7, [0049], a fixation light source 1701 and a gaze light path lens 1703 together constitute the fixation optical module) but does not teach independent of the optical detection apparatus. However, in a similar endeavor, Munger teaches independent of the optical detection apparatus (Page 4, line 10, collection of these separate streams of independent optical signals to appropriate detection system; Page 13, line 13, goal of the instrument is to independently detect light originated at the retina). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the optical device of Cai with the components of Munger for the purpose of optimizing separately detected light with specificity and accuracy in determination of optical properties of one or more elements of the eye (Munger, Page 4, line 11-12).
Regarding claim 2, Cain in view of Munger discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Cai further teaches wherein the specific combination type is a direct integration type ([0086], anterior segment imaging technology combined with the coaxial anterior segment imaging technology can also be applied to other systems, such as a fundus camera combined with an OCT system), and the optical module is directly integrated with the optical detection apparatus ([0086], anterior segment imaging technology combined with the coaxial anterior segment imaging technology can also be applied to other systems, such as a fundus camera combined with an OCT system).
Regarding claim 6, Cain in view of Munger discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Cai further teaches wherein the specific combination type is an attachable type (Fig 2, [0044]), and the optical module can be attached (Fig 2, [0044], 1107 is connected to sample arm optical fiber) to or detached from the optical detection apparatus.
Regarding claim 7, Cain in view of Munger discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Cai further teaches wherein the light source is designed as a multi-light source to provide a uniform light source ([0043], 1101 an infrared light source with a central wavelength of 840 nm and a certain bandwidth can be selected, such as a superluminescent diode SLED, or an infrared light source with a central wavelength of 1050 nm and a certain bandwidth, such as a swept frequency light source).
Regarding claim 10, Cain in view of Munger discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Cai further teaches wherein the optical detection apparatus (10) is an optical ophthalmology detection apparatus to perform the optical detection on the testee's eyes ([0044], detection beam of the posterior segment OCT imaging optical path system satisfies the requirement that the center line of the scanning beam converges near the pupil of the human eye, while the OCT beam is focused on the fundus Er of the human eye).
Claim(s) 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in Cai (CN 112244757 A) in view of Munger (WO 2008037090 A1) and in further view of Phan et al. (Phan, Alex et al. “Design of an Optical Pressure Measurement System for Intraocular Pressure Monitoring.” IEEE sensors journal 18.1 (2018): 61–68. Web.), hereto referred as Phan. An English machine translation has been provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 3, Cai in view of Munger discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the specific combination type is a bending type, and the optical module is connected to the optical detection apparatus and the optical module is in a bent or upright state. However, Phan teaches wherein the specific combination type is a bending type, and the optical module is connected to the optical detection apparatus and the optical module is in a bent or upright state (Phan, FIG. 2, p.62, Sec. III, ¶1: "The sensor consists of a square flexible silicon nitride (SiN) diaphragm, a rigid glass substrate and a spacer to form a cavity of height h", describing an optical pressure sensor that consists of a flexible membrane and a rigid glass substrate, forming a sealed cavity where the membrane deflects in response to changes in intraocular pressure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the optical device of Cai and Munger with the components of Phan for the purpose of improving sensor measurement within an ophthalmic device with high accuracy (Phan, p. 62, Col 1, Par 2).
Regarding claim 4, Cai in view of Munger discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the specific combination type is a foldable type, and the optical module is connected to the optical detection apparatus and the optical module is in a folded or unfolded state. However, Phan teaches wherein the specific combination type is a foldable type, and the optical module is connected to the optical detection apparatus and the optical module is in a folded or unfolded state (Phan, FIG. 2, p.62, Sec. III, ¶1: "The sensor consists of a square flexible silicon nitride (SiN) diaphragm, a rigid glass substrate and a spacer to form a cavity of height h", describing an optical pressure sensor that consists of a flexible membrane and a rigid glass substrate, forming a sealed cavity where the membrane deflects in response to changes in intraocular pressure). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the optical device of Cai and Munger with the components of Phan for the purpose of improving sensor measurement within an ophthalmic device with high accuracy (Phan, p. 62, Col 1, Par 2).
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 112244757 A) in view of Munger (WO 2008037090 A1) and in further view of Hideshima (20080002151). An English machine translation has been provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 8, Cai in view of Munger discloses the invention as described within claim 7 but does not teach wherein the light source is designed as a reverse type multi-light source. However, Hideshima teaches wherein the light source ([0063], objective lens projects a point light source image) is designed as a reverse type multi-light source (Fig 2, [0065]-[0066], light beam from the ocular fundus takes a reverse light path). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the optical device of Cai and Munger with the components of Hideshima for the purpose of compensating optical aberration of the tested eye (Hideshima, [0016]).
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cai (CN 112244757 A) in view of Munger (WO 2008037090 A1) and in further view of Lichtenauer (20170325676). An English machine translation has been provided for the foreign patent publication.
Regarding claim 9, Cai in view of Munger discloses the invention as described within claim 7 but does not teach wherein the light source is designed as a ring-shaped multi-light source. However, Lichtenauer teaches wherein the light source is designed as a ring-shaped multi-light source (Fig 18, [0118], illumination source may comprise a ring). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to modify the optical device of Cai and Munger with the components of Lichtenauer for the purpose of optimizing noise reduction within an optical device to establish normal response characteristics of stimuli (Lichtenauer, [0127]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 5, the prior art of Cai taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical detection system including the specific arrangement: “wherein the specific combination type is a low height type, and lights emitted by the light source in the optical module are incident to the lens set through at least one reflection on an inner wall of the optical module”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The amended claim language of claim 1 has been addressed in the above office action.
The prior art Munger establishes the use of a freestanding or independent optical detection apparatus within an optical measurement system. The remaining arguments refer to the invention previously disclosed in the office action dated 10/10/2025.
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 Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872