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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 9, 11-16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pamplona et al. (US 2016/0157716) in view of Blanco et al. (US 2016/0206199).
Regarding claim 1, Pamplona discloses, a system (Fig. 6) comprising:
a light source (Para. 0072 and see 601, 603) to transmit incident light through an optical mask (611, 612), the optical mask comprising a light attenuation portion (Para. 0117 and 0178; note, discloses the use of color filters and a light attenuation pattern) to impede transmission of the incident light and a plurality of apertures to allow transmission of a selected wavelength and intensity of the incident light (Para. 0117 and 0178; note, discloses the use of color filters and a light attenuation pattern);
the plurality of apertures (see 612) defining a pattern (see 612) that the incident light creates when it is cast on a portion of an anatomy of a patient (615);
an image sensor (605) to capture data representative of the pattern that is reflected from the anatomy of a patient (Para. 0139); and
a processing resource (Para. 0139; note, discloses the use of one or more computer processors) to assess a condition of the anatomy based upon the data (Para. 0012-0013 and 0015; note, discloses assess refractive aberration(s) of the eye and retinoscopy).
Pamplona does not explicitly disclose the pattern is an apex-rich pattern.
Blanco teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system that it would have been desirable to make the pattern is an apex-rich pattern (Para. 0058 and 710 of Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pattern is an apex-rich pattern as taught by the system of Blanco in the system of Pamplona since Blanco teaches it is known to include this feature in a system for the purpose of providing a system with improved resolution and image quality.
Regarding claim 2, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, the light source is operative to transmit the incident light in the selected wavelength (Para. 0072 and see 601, 603).
Regarding claim 3, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, ones of the plurality of apertures are transparent in the selected wavelength (Para. 0117).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, ones of the plurality of apertures are translucent and operative to transmit only light having the selected wavelength (Para. 0117).
Regarding claim 5, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, ones of the plurality of apertures comprise a plurality of apices (Para. 0072 and see 612; note, discloses the aperture is dynamically modifiable to be of any type).
Regarding claim 6, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, ones of the plurality of apertures comprise a plurality of edges (Para. 0072 and see 612 ; note, discloses the aperture is dynamically modifiable to be of any type).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, a lens to collimate the pattern on the image sensor (see 621 and associated text).
Regarding claim 11, Pamplona discloses, a method (Fig. 6) comprising providing a light source (Para. 0072 and see 601, 603) to illuminate an area of a patient's anatomy (615) with incident light of a selected wavelength and intensity (Para. 0117 and 0178; note, discloses the use of color filters and a light attenuation pattern);
interposing an optical mask (611, 612) between the light source and the area;
employing the optical mask to cast a pre-determined pattern (see 612) of the incident light on the area;
capturing an image of the pattern using an image sensor (605) to create image data; and
interpreting the image data to assess a condition of the area (Para. 0012-0013 and 0015; note, discloses assess refractive aberration(s) of the eye and retinoscopy).
Pamplona does not explicitly disclose the pattern is an apex-rich pattern.
Blanco teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system that it would have been desirable to make the pattern is an apex-rich pattern (Para. 0058 and 710 of Fig. 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the pattern is an apex-rich pattern as taught by the system of Blanco in the system of Pamplona since Blanco teaches it is known to include this feature in a system for the purpose of providing a system with improved resolution and image quality.
Regarding claim 12, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, the providing a light source comprises transmitting the incident light in the selected wavelength (Para. 0072, and see 601, 603).
Regarding claim 13, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, the employing the optical mask (611, 612) comprises using a plurality of apertures to transmit the incident light in the selected wavelength (Para. 0117 and 0178; note, discloses the use of color filters and a light attenuation pattern).
Regarding claim 14, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, ones of the plurality of apertures are transparent in the selected wavelength (Para. 0117 and 0178; note, discloses the use of color filters and a light attenuation pattern).
Regarding claim 19, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, the pattern comprises a geometry that is optimized to be interpreted by a machine (Para. 0062).
Regarding claim 20, Pamplona in view of Blanco discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further discloses, the pattern comprises a geometry that is optimized to be interpreted by a machine (Para. 0062).
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplona et al. (US 2016/0157716) in view of Blanco et al. (US 2016/0206199) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raskar et al. (US 2012/0206694).
Pamplona in view of Blanco remains as applied to claim 1 above.
Pamplona in view of Blanco does not disclose a light diffusing element interposed between the light source and the optical mask.
Raskar teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system that it would have been desirable to make a light diffusing element (811 of Fig. 8B) interposed between the light source and the optical mask (Para. 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make a light diffusing element interposed between the light source and the optical mask as taught by the system of Raskar in the combination of Pamplona in view of Blanco since Raskar teaches it is known to include these features in a system for the purpose of providing a cost effective system with increased light efficiency.
Regarding claim 8, Pamplona, Blanco and Raskar discloses and teaches as set forth above, and Pamplona further teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the light diffusing element transmits the incident light in the selected wavelength (Para. 0076 and see 811 of Fig. 8B).
Claims 10 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pamplona et al. (US 2016/0157716) in view of Blanco et al. (US 2016/0206199) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Ramella-Soman et al. (US 2010/0085537).
Pamplona in view of Blanco remains as applied to claims 1 and 16 above.
Furthermore, Pamplona discloses, the image sensor is a camera (Para. 0133).
Pamplona in view of Blanco does not disclose the image sensor is one of a charge-coupled device and a complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensor.
Ramella-Soman teaches, from the same field of endeavor that in a system and method that it would have been desirable to make the image sensor is one of a charge-coupled device and a complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensor (Para. 0051).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to make the image sensor is one of a charge-coupled device and a complementary metal oxide semiconductor sensor as taught by the system of Ramella-Soman in the combination of Pamplona in view of Blanco since Ramella-Soman teaches it is known to include this feature in a system and method for the purpose of providing a system and method with improved accuracy and image quality.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., an apex and edge-rich corneal-reflected image may be captured. Circumferential displacement of these apices and edges is more evident than is available with traditional placido disk reflection techniques…artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms may be employed to determine the probability of specific pathologies of the eye) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., apex-rich, a pattern of incident light falling on a portion of a patient's anatomy (e.g., such as a cornea) may be produced that, while less interpretable to a human being, is more aligned with the sort of images that AI algorithms and machine learning engines require (or prefer) to make inferences or diagnostic suggestions. In some aspects of the present disclosure, such an apex-rich optical mask may present a significant distinction from conventional technologies) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s arguments that Pamplona does not teach or even suggest capturing an image of a pattern that is cast on a surface of an eye (or any other anatomical surface). The Examiner points out that the term cast means to cause light to appear on a surface or to put forth. Based on this definition the Examiner interprets that Pamplona discloses capturing an image of a pattern that is cast on a surface of an eye (or any other anatomical surface).
In response to applicant’s arguments that Pamplona does not disclose data representative of the pattern-not the anatomical area-are captured and processed by the disclosed system and method. The Examiner points out that Para. 0070 of the instant specification discloses that the data is images of patient tissue and Para. 0008 of the instant specification discloses data that have been captured in a manner designed for automated machine interpretation (e.g., a machine learning algorithm) which may then enable a device to render an interpretation of the acquired data. For example, it may be desirable in some instances to obtain (for subsequent processing) an image of a cornea or other body feature that is more advantageous for machine interpretation than it is for traditional interpretation methods that rely upon human intervention (and that only subsequently may be repurposed for machine ingestion). Therefore, the Examiner interprets that Pamplona discloses an image sensor to capture data (images of patient tissue).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., Claims 19 and 20 have been added to emphasize that the pattern may be optimized for interpretation by a machine learning or other processing engine) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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 DAWAYNE A PINKNEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1305. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at 571-270-1284. 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.
/DAWAYNE PINKNEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 12/20/2025
Prosecution Insights