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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/09/26 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant amended claims 1, 6, and 21-22, and canceled claim 2. Claims 1, 3-18, and 21-22 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-10 of Applicant’s Remarks, filed 06/09/26, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-4, 6-9, 11-12, 16, 18, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Ivri, of claims 2 and 5 over Ivri view of Stowe, of claim 10 over Ivri view of Meierhoefer, of claims 13 and 15 over Ivri in view of Weber, of claim 14 over Ivri in view of Weber and in further view of Berry, of claim 17 over Ivri in view of Berry have been fully considered and are not persuasive. In light of the amendments to incorporate the subject matter of claim 2 into independent claims 1, 21, and 22, new grounds of rejection have been made as indicated below.
With respect to Ivri, see page 7, Applicant argues that Ivri is silent with respect to slits in a concave mirror and light emitters configured to produce a light beam through each slit, and alleges that the Final Rejection dated 04/06/26 acknowledges that “Ivri does not disclose that the light emitter is configured to produce a light beam emitted through each slit”, citing the rejection of claim 2 in said Final Rejection. However, as discussed in the previous office action and below, Ivri discloses that the mirror or reflective surface, which may be a concave mirror, may comprise one or more openings with one or more nozzle apertures aligned with them (¶0064) and that the one or more openings may be slits (¶0088). Therefore, Ivri does disclose slits in a concave mirror. Ivri is merely silent with respect to a light emitter producing a light beam emitted through each slit.
With respect to Stowe, and the combination of Ivri and Stowe, see pages 7-8, Applicant argues that Stowe is entirely silent with respect to mirrors or reflective surfaces, and that their neither Ivri nor Stowe teach or otherwise describe an opening in a mirror comprising a series of slits, and a light emitter configured to produce a light beam emitted through each slit. However, as discussed above, Ivri discloses an opening in a mirror comprising a series of slits with spray nozzles aligned with the slits. As discussed below. Stowe teaches an eye sprayer comprising a nozzle with one or more spray apertures which are aligned with an LED light source such that light rays from the light source pass through the spray apertures and can only be seen when the spray apertures are correctly aligned with the user’s eye, which assists the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer (¶0078). As further discussed below, modifying the device of Ivri so that the light source is aligned with the spray nozzles or apertures to project lights rays through the spray nozzles or apertures and only be seen when the nozzles or apertures are correctly aligned with the user’s eye as taught by Stowe would result in a device in which light beams are emitted through each slit aligned with each nozzle or aperture.
Applicant further argues, see pages 8-9, that Stowe is silent with respect to mirrors and describes direct viewing of a light source rather than reflected viewing as in Ivri, and that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify indirect view of a light source to align a device with direct viewing as described in Stowe. However, even if Stowe does not describe light emitted through the nozzles as reflecting off the eye to be viewable by the patient, light emitted through the nozzles and slits would still be physically reflected off the cornea surface of the eye. By incorporating the light emitting system of Stowe into the concave mirror device of Ivri, the light emitted through the nozzles and slits would be partially reflected off of the corneal surface and would be viewable in the mirror of Ivri. In the phrasing presented by Applicant, this would result in a system incorporating both direct viewing and indirect view of alignment light. As discussed below, Stowe teaches that projecting the light through the nozzles (and therefore the slits in the mirror in the modified device of Ivri in view of Stowe) assists the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer by only allowing the light to be seen when the nozzles are correctly aligned, and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to modify the device of Ivri to incorporate the features of Stowe.
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 1, 3-9, 11-12, 16, 18, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivri et al. (US 2019/0314198 A1) in view of Stowe (US 2020/0360180 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ivri discloses an eye sprayer (Figs. 400A-B, feat. 400; ¶0060; Figs. 500A-C and 600A-C, feat. 800; ¶0074-0079; Figs. 700A-B, feat. 900; ¶0087-0092; Fig. 800, feat. 1000; ¶0093) comprising: a spray aperture having an aperture axis (Figs. 400A-B, feat. 23; ¶0060), the spray aperture being configured to produce eye spray (24); a concave mirror (Figs. 500A-C, feat. 805; ¶0074-0079; Fig. 700B, feat. 910; ¶0088; Fig. 800, feat. 1050; ¶0093) with an opening (Figs. 500A-C, feat. 806; Fig. 7B, feat. 908; Fig. 800, feat. 1060) configured to allow for delivery of the eye spray from the spray aperture (¶0093); and a light emitter (1070) configured to produce a visible light beam directed from the mirror along the nozzle axis (¶0071-0072), the light emitter being positioned relative to the mirror in a manner that allows a user to align a view of the visible light beam over an image of a pupil of the user on the mirror to align the aperture axis of the spray aperture with an eye of the user (¶0071-0072, esp. ¶0072 lines 1-8), wherein the opening in the mirror comprises a series of slits (¶0064 and 0088), and the spray nozzle comprises a series of nozzles, with a nozzle being positioned centrally in each slit (Fig. 500A, feat. 806; ¶0064 and 0078).
Ivri discloses an eye sprayer comprising a spray aperture (Figs. 400A-B, feat. 23), in the above embodiment, and therefore the disclosed eye sprayer differs from the claimed device by the substitution of the prior art spray aperture for the claimed spray nozzle. Ivri further teaches an alternate embodiment of an eye sprayer (Figs. 100-300, feat. 100; ¶0046-0058) comprising a spray nozzle (Fig. 100, feat. 116; ¶0050). Therefore, an eye sprayer comprising a spray nozzle was known in the prior art. The embodiment with the spray aperture employs a piezoelectric actuator to oscillate the eye sprayer to cause the fluid pressure in the sprayer to fluctuate and eject droplets from the spray aperture (¶0060). The embodiment with the spray nozzle employs an electromagnetic actuator to oscillate the eye sprayer to cause the fluid pressure in the sprayer to fluctuate and eject droplets from the spray nozzle (¶0046-0050). Therefore, both the spray aperture embodiment and the spray nozzle embodiment operate by oscillating the eye sprayer to cause the fluid pressure to fluctuate and eject droplets. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the nozzle for the aperture, with the predictable results of the eye sprayer continuing to eject droplets due to the oscillation caused by the piezoelectric actuator. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye sprayer disclosed by Ivri to substitute the spray nozzle of one embodiment for the aperture of the other embodiment. Please see MPEP §2143(B).
Ivri does not disclose that the light emitter is configured to produce a light beam emitted through each slit.
Stowe teaches an eye sprayer (Fig. 1, feat. 10; ¶0050) comprising a nozzle with one or more apertures (Figs. 3 and 5, feat. 37; ¶0053-0054) which may be transparent such that an LED light source may be aligned behind the nozzle such that light rays from the light source pass through the nozzle and can only been seen when the nozzles are correctly aligned with the user’s eye (¶0078). Stowe teaches that this advantageously assists the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer towards their eye (¶0078). By modifying the sprayer of Ivri, which includes a series of nozzles aligned with a series of slits as discussed above, so that the light source projects light rays through the nozzles to align the nozzles with the eye as taught by Stowe, the light rays would also be projected through the slits because the nozzles are aligned with the slits. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer suggested by Ivri so that the light emitter is configured to produce a light beam emitted through each slit in order to assist the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer towards their eye as taught by Stowe.
Regarding claim 3, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 1, and Ivri further discloses that the eye spray comprises at least one of drops, a mist, and a micro-sheet of eye drop fluid (Figs. 400A-B, feat. 24; ¶0060 and 0088). Regarding claim 4, Ivri further discloses that a central axis of the mirror and the nozzle axis are coincident and parallel (Fig. 500A, feats. 24 and 803; ¶0078).
Regarding claim 5, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 1.
As discussed above, Stowe teaches an eye sprayer (Fig. 1, feat. 10; ¶0050) comprising a nozzle with one or more apertures (Figs. 3 and 5, feat. 37; ¶0053-0054) which may be transparent such that an LED light source may be aligned behind the nozzle such that light rays from the light source pass through the nozzle and can only been seen when the nozzles are correctly aligned with the user’s eye (¶0078). Stowe teaches that this advantageously assists the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer towards their eye (¶0078). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer suggested by Ivri in view of Stowe so that the light emitter is configured to direct the light through the spray nozzle along the nozzle axis in order to assist the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer towards their eye as taught by Stowe.
Regarding claim 6, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the sprayer of claim 1, and Ivri further discloses that the eye sprayer is configured to allow the user to view the eye at a prescribed working distance (¶0076-0077), and align the spray nozzle by aligning the image of their own eye with a view of the visible light beam overlaid on top of it (¶0071-0072, esp. ¶0072, lines 1-8).
Regarding claim 7, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 1. Ivri does not explicitly disclose that the mirror has a radius of curvature configured to produce a degree of magnification that allows users with myopia or hyperopia/presbyopia to view the eye with the eye sprayer positioned at a prescribed working distance. However, Ivri further discloses that the concave mirror (Fig. 500A, feat. 805; ¶0074) has a radius of curvature (R) which is calculated as twice the focal distance (F), which is the distance for the tissue of interest, such as the iris (802), to be clearly visible in the mirror in order to properly align the device (¶0076). Ivri further discloses that the optimal ranges of distances between the sprayer and the targeted tissue is in the range of 10-100 mm (¶0077), which corresponds to an optimal range of radii of curvatures of 20-200 mm. Ivri further discloses that the degree of magnification of the eye in the mirror is dependent upon the radius of curvature of the mirror (¶0083-0086). Radius of curvature is therefore a result effective variable which determines the working/focal distance at which the user’s eye appears clearly in the mirror (¶0076) and the degree of magnification of the eye in the mirror (¶0083-0086), both of which Ivri teaches aid with alignment of the sprayer relative to the user’s eye. Ivri teaches that the working distance should be selected within a range of 10-100 mm, corresponding to a radius of curvature within a range of 20-200 mm, to allow a given user to conveniently hold the sprayer close to their eye while providing ease of proper alignment for the user (¶0077). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer suggested by Ivri in view of Stowe so that the mirror has a radius of curvature configured to produce a degree of magnification that allows users with myopia or hyperopia/presbyopia to view his/her eye with the eye sprayer positioned at a prescribed working distance in order to allow the user to conveniently hold the sprayer close to their eye while providing ease of proper alignment for the user. Please see MPEP §2144.05(I-II).
Regarding claims 8-9, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 7. As discussed above, Ivri teaches that the working distance should be selected within a range of 10-100 mm, corresponding to a radius of curvature within a range of 20-200 mm, to allow the user to conveniently hold the sprayer close to their eye while providing ease of proper alignment for the user (¶0077). The claimed radius of curvature of 55±2 mm with a working distance of 25 mm lies within the prior art ranges, and could have been arrived at while optimizing within the ranged taught by Ivri, with respect to claim 8. Likewise, the claimed radius of curvature of 67±2 mm with a working distance of 30 mm lies within the prior art ranges, and could have been arrived at while optimizing within the ranged taught by Ivri, with respect to claim 9. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer suggested by Ivri in view of Stowe so that the mirror has a radius of curvature of 55±2 mm and a working distance of 25 mm, with respect to claim 8, or so that the mirror has a radius of curvature of 67±2 mm and a working distance of 30 mm, with respect to claim 9, in order to allow the user to conveniently hold the sprayer close to their eye while providing ease of proper alignment for the user as taught by Ivri.
Regarding claim 11, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 7. As discussed above, Ivri discloses that the mirror should have a radius of curvature such that the target tissue is clearly visible in the mirror in order to properly align the device at the proper focal distance (¶0074-0077). Therefore, Ivri further discloses that the mirror has a radius of curvature configured to allow the user to view the eye with sufficient clarity and lack of blurriness to allow them to algin the view of the eye with the eye sprayer positioned at a prescribed working distance.
Regarding claim 12, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 11. Ivri does not explicitly disclose that the mirror is configured to accommodate users with myopia of at least -6D or hyperopia/presbyopia of at least +3D. The present specification indicates that a mirror with a radius of curvature of 55±2 mm and a working distance of 25 mm can accommodate a range of eyes from myopia -6D to hyperopia +3D (Present specification: ¶0059). As discussed above, Ivri teaches that the working distance should be selected within a range of 10-100 mm, corresponding to a radius of curvature within a range of 20-200 mm, to allow the user to conveniently hold the sprayer close to their eye while providing ease of proper alignment for the user (¶0077). The radius of curvature and working distance which accommodate the specified users lie within the prior art ranges of Ivri. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer suggested by Ivri in view of Stowe so that the mirror has a radius of curvature of 55±2 mm and a working distance of 25 mm in order to allow the user to conveniently hold the sprayer close to their eye while providing ease of proper alignment for the user as taught by Ivri.
Regarding claim 16, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 1, and Ivri further discloses a proximity sensor configured to determine a proximity of the eye sprayer to the eye and produce a visual indication of the sprayer being inside or outside a prescribed range of working distances (Fig. 800, feat. 1080; ¶0073 and 0093). Regarding claim 18, Ivri further discloses that the proximity sensor comprises an ultrasonic proximity sensor, a light based-positioned sensor, or a camera-based position sensor (Fig. 800, feat. 1080; ¶0073 and 0093: the distance/proximity sensor may be an IR sensor, which is light based).
Regarding claim 21, Ivri discloses an alignment system (¶0071-0077) comprising: a concave mirror (Figs. 500A-C, feat. 805; ¶0074-0079; Fig. 700B, feat. 910; ¶0088; Fig. 800, feat. 1050; ¶0093) with an opening (Figs. 500A-C, feat. 806; Fig. 7B, feat. 908; Fig. 800, feat. 1060) configured to allow for delivery of eye spray from a spray aperture (¶0093), the mirror having a central axis (Fig. 500A, feat. 803; ¶0078); and a light emitter (1070; ¶0071-0072 and 0093) configured to produce a visible light beam directed from the mirror along the central axis (Fig. 500A; ¶0071-0072 and 0078), the light emitter being positioned relative to the mirror in a manner that allows a user to align a view of the visible light beam over an image of a pupil of the user on the mirror to align the central axis of the mirror with an eye of the user (¶0071-0072, esp. ¶0072 lines 1-8), wherein the opening in the mirror comprises a series of slits (¶0064 and 0088), and the spray nozzle comprises a series of nozzles, with a nozzle being positioned centrally in each slit (Fig. 500A, feat. 806; ¶0064 and 0078).
As discussed above, Ivri discloses an eye sprayer comprising a spray aperture (Figs. 400A-B, feat. 23), in the above embodiment, and therefore the disclosed eye sprayer differs from the claimed device by the substitution of the prior art spray aperture for the claimed spray nozzle. Ivri further teaches an alternate embodiment of an eye sprayer (Figs. 100-300, feat. 100; ¶0046-0058) comprising a spray nozzle (Fig. 100, feat. 116; ¶0050). Therefore, an eye sprayer comprising a spray nozzle was known in the prior art. The embodiment with the spray aperture employs a piezoelectric actuator to oscillate the eye sprayer to cause the fluid pressure in the sprayer to fluctuate and eject droplets from the spray aperture (¶0060). The embodiment with the spray nozzle employs an electromagnetic actuator to oscillate the eye sprayer to cause the fluid pressure in the sprayer to fluctuate and eject droplets from the spray nozzle (¶0046-0050). Therefore, both the spray aperture embodiment and the spray nozzle embodiment operate by oscillating the eye sprayer to cause the fluid pressure to fluctuate and eject droplets. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the nozzle for the aperture, with the predictable results of the eye sprayer continuing to eject droplets due to the oscillation caused by the piezoelectric actuator. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye sprayer disclosed by Ivri to substitute the spray nozzle of one embodiment for the aperture of the other embodiment. Please see MPEP §2143(B).
Ivri does not disclose that the light emitter is configured to produce a light beam emitted through each slit.
Stowe teaches an eye sprayer (Fig. 1, feat. 10; ¶0050) comprising a nozzle with one or more apertures (Figs. 3 and 5, feat. 37; ¶0053-0054) which may be transparent such that an LED light source may be aligned behind the nozzle such that light rays from the light source pass through the nozzle and can only been seen when the nozzles are correctly aligned with the user’s eye (¶0078). Stowe teaches that this advantageously assists the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer towards their eye (¶0078). By modifying the sprayer of Ivri, which includes a series of nozzles aligned with a series of slits as discussed above, so that the light source projects light rays through the nozzles to align the nozzles with the eye as taught by Stowe, the light rays would also be projected through the slits because the nozzles are aligned with the slits. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer suggested by Ivri so that the light emitter is configured to produce a light beam emitted through each slit in order to assist the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer towards their eye as taught by Stowe.
Regarding claim 22, Ivri discloses a method (¶0006, 0026-0027 and 0090-0093) comprising: actuating a light emitter (Fig. 800, feat. 1070; ¶0071-0072 and 0090-0093) to produce a visible light beam directed from a concave mirror (Figs. 500A-C, feat. 805; ¶0074-0079; Fig. 700B, feat. 910; ¶0088; Fig. 800, feat. 1050; ¶0093) along an aperture axis of a spray aperture (Figs. 400A-B, feat. 23; ¶0060); aligning a view of the visible light beam over an image of a pupil of a user on the mirror to align the aperture axis of the spray aperture with an eye of the user (¶0071-0072, esp. 0072, lines 1-8); and delivering eye spray from the spray aperture, through an opening in the mirror (Figs. 500A-C, feat. 806; Fig. 7B, feat. 908; Fig. 800, feat. 1060), and to the eye of the user (¶0026-0027), wherein the opening in the mirror comprises a series of slits (¶0064 and 0088), and the spray nozzle comprises a series of nozzles, with a nozzle being positioned centrally in each slit (Fig. 500A, feat. 806; ¶0064 and 0078).
Ivri discloses an eye sprayer comprising a spray aperture (Figs. 400A-B, feat. 23), in the above embodiment, and therefore the disclosed eye sprayer differs from the claimed device by the substitution of the prior art spray aperture for the claimed spray nozzle. Ivri further teaches an alternate embodiment of an eye sprayer (Figs. 100-300, feat. 100; ¶0046-0058) comprising a spray nozzle (Fig. 100, feat. 116; ¶0050). Therefore, an eye sprayer comprising a spray nozzle was known in the prior art. The embodiment with the spray aperture employs a piezoelectric actuator to oscillate the eye sprayer to cause the fluid pressure in the sprayer to fluctuate and eject droplets from the spray aperture (¶0060). The embodiment with the spray nozzle employs an electromagnetic actuator to oscillate the eye sprayer to cause the fluid pressure in the sprayer to fluctuate and eject droplets from the spray nozzle (¶0046-0050). Therefore, both the spray aperture embodiment and the spray nozzle embodiment operate by oscillating the eye sprayer to cause the fluid pressure to fluctuate and eject droplets. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted the nozzle for the aperture, with the predictable results of the eye sprayer continuing to eject droplets due to the oscillation caused by the piezoelectric actuator. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye sprayer disclosed by Ivri to substitute the spray nozzle of one embodiment for the aperture of the other embodiment. Please see MPEP §2143(B).
Ivri does not disclose that the visible light beam is directed from the opening in the concave mirror or that the light emitter is configured to produce a light beam emitted through each slit.
Stowe teaches an eye sprayer (Fig. 1, feat. 10; ¶0050) comprising a nozzle with one or more apertures (Figs. 3 and 5, feat. 37; ¶0053-0054) which may be transparent such that an LED light source may be aligned behind the nozzle such that light rays from the light source pass through the nozzle and can only been seen when the nozzles are correctly aligned with the user’s eye (¶0078). Stowe teaches that this advantageously assists the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer towards their eye (¶0078). By modifying the sprayer of Ivri, which includes a series of nozzles aligned with a series of slits as discussed above, so that the light source projects light rays through the nozzles to align the nozzles with the eye as taught by Stowe, the light rays would also be projected through the slits because the nozzles are aligned with the slits. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method suggested by Ivri so that the visible light beam is directed from the opening in the concave mirror and so that the light emitter is configured to produce a light beam emitted through each slit in order to assist the user in correctly aiming the eye sprayer towards their eye as taught by Stowe.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivri in view of Stowe and in further view of Meierhoefer (US 2006/0173425 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 7. As discussed above, Ivri teaches that the radius of curvature of the mirror should be optimized to allow a given user to conveniently hold the sprayer close to their eye while providing ease of proper alignment for the user (¶0074-0077). As discussed above, Ivri teaches that proper alignment is achieved when the reflected image of the user’s eye appears focused within the mirror (¶0076). Ivri further teaches that conditions such as presbyopia and myopia, which are traditionally treated with prescription eyeglasses or contact lenses, change the focusing distance of the eye (¶0099 and 0111). The optimal distance at which an image in the mirror of the sprayer appears in focus would therefore be dependent in part upon the focusing distance of the eye, and the eyeglasses or contact lens prescription. Therefore, Ivri further teaches that the radius of curvature of the mirror is chosen to allow optimal focus position based on an eye prescription of the user in order to allow a given user to conveniently hold the sprayer close to their eye while providing ease of proper alignment for the user.
Ivri in view of Stowe is silent with respect to the mirror being an interchangeable insert.
Meierhoefer teaches an eye drop guide (Fig. 1, feat. 4; ¶0014) for an eye drop bottle (2) which includes a mirror (8) for helping users accurately dispense eye drops (¶0013). Meierhoefer teaches that the mirror may be removably attached to the guide (Fig. 5, feat. 8; ¶0020) for shipping and storage (¶0020). Because the mirror is removably attached to the guide, it is also interchangeable. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer suggested by Ivri in view of Stowe so that the mirror is an interchangeable insert for shipping and storage as taught by Meierhoefer.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivri in view of Stowe and in further view of Weber (US 2015/0265145 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 1, but does not disclose that the mirror is semi-transparent and allows viewing additional light sources located behind the mirror to aid alignment.
Weber teaches a method of providing a patient with a sharp gaze fixation target during ophthalmological measurements and independent of the sight defects of the patient (¶0001-0002). Weber teaches that such a gaze fixation target may be a light source (Fig. 1, feat. 12; ¶0028) positioned behind a semi-transparent mirror (¶0030). Weber teaches that this aids with providing the sharpest possible fixation target to the patient, which results in a stable accommodation position (¶0005-0006). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer suggested by Ivri in view of Stowe so that the mirror is semi-transparent and allows viewing additional light sources located behind the mirror to aid alignment in order to aid with providing the sharpest possible fixation target to the patient as taught by Weber.
Regarding claim 15, Ivri in view of Stowe and in further view of Weber suggests the eye sprayer of claim 13. Ivri further discloses that the light emitter comprises a light ring concentric with the mirror and extending around the nozzle (Fig. 800, feat. 1070; ¶0072 and 0093).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivri in view of Stowe, in further view of Weber, and in further view of Berry (US 2021/0145272 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Ivri in view of Stowe and in further view of Weber suggests the sprayer of claim 13. Weber does not teach the transmission or reflection proportion of the semi-transparent mirror.
Berry teaches a gaze fixation device (Figs. 1-4, feat. 1; ¶0053) for ophthalmological examination comprising a partially reflective mirror (3) for projecting a gaze target (8) towards the patient. Berry teaches that the mirror should be configured to provide enough light to the patient to ensure that there is enough light for the patient’s gaze to remain fixated (¶0062). Berry teaches that a reflectivity of 70%, and a corresponding transmission of 30% is sufficient to provide enough light for the patient’s gaze to remain fixated (¶0015 and 0062). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sprayer suggested by Ivri in view of Stowe and in further view of Weber so that the mirror has a semi-transparency of about 30% transmission and about 70% reflectivity in order to provide enough light for the patient’s gaze to remain fixated as taught by Berry.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivri in view of Stowe and in further view of Berry (US 2021/0145272 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Ivri in view of Stowe suggests the eye sprayer of claim 16, but does not disclose that the mirror is semi-transparent and the proximity sensor detects the proximity of the sprayer to the eye through the mirror.
As discussed above, Berry teaches a gaze fixation device (Figs. 1-4, feat. 1; ¶0052-0055) for ophthalmological examination comprising a partially reflective mirror (3) for projecting a gaze target (8) towards the patient. Berry teaches that the partially reflective mirror advantageously allows a measurement device (Figs. 1-4, feat. 6) to be positioned behind the mirror and directly along the same axis as the patient’s line of sight, which improves the accuracy of the measurement (¶0005-0006 and 0054-0055). Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye sprayer suggested by Ivri in view of Stowe so that the mirror is semi-transparent and the proximity sensor detects the proximity of the sprayer to the eye through the mirror in order to improve the accuracy of the measurement of the proximity sensor as taught by Berry.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARJUNA P CHATRATHI whose telephone number is (571)272-8063. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 5712727159. 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.
/ARJUNA P CHATRATHI/Examiner, Art Unit 3781 /JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights