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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement (PTO-1449) filed 08/15/2023. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The subject matter “determining an image size by counting the number of pixels across said second end of said tube” lacks written description. The specification does not describe this limitation.
Claims 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. The subject matter “determining an image size by counting the number of pixels across said second end of said tube” lacks clarity.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace et al. (USP No. 9,839,352), hereinafter “Wallace”, in view of Nabhan (USPG Pub No. 2018/0092534).
Regarding claim 1, Wallace discloses a smartphone Placido disc evaluation device (see Fig. 4) comprising said clamping mechanism further includes an illuminating ring (22) within a that surrounded by a reflective cone (18) wherein light is directed away from said clamping mechanism and into said reflective cone (18) (see Fig. 4, Col. 8, Line 58 – Col. 9, Line 8, Col. 12, Line 63 – Col. 13, Line 9); said illuminating ring further includes a tube (23) that extends from a first end of said illuminating ring (22) within said reflective cone (see Fig. 4), and said tube (23) includes a plurality of light and dark rings whereby said light and dark rings project circular images in a curved surface placed at a second end of said tube (Col. 8, Line 43 – Col. 9, Line 8). Wallace discloses the claimed invention, but does not specify evaluation of tear film break-up, a clam shell clamping mechanism that is configured to clamp a mobile communication device with a camera within said clam shell clamping mechanism over said camera in said mobile communication device. In the same field of endeavor, Nabhan discloses evaluation of tear film break-up (Paragraph 9), a clam shell clamping mechanism that is configured to clamp a mobile communication device with a camera within said clam shell clamping mechanism over said camera in said mobile communication device (Paragraph 37). The attachment and clamping mechanisms presented in Paragraph 37 of Nabhan are inclusive of the claimed “clam shell” clamping mechanism. 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 device of Wallace with evaluation of tear film break-up, a clam shell clamping mechanism that is configured to clamp a mobile communication device with a camera within said clam shell clamping mechanism over said camera in said mobile communication device of Nabhan for the purpose of providing a simple and economical method of constructing corneal topography (Paragraph 9).
Regarding claim 2, Wallace further discloses wherein said curved surface is an eye (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 3, Wallace discloses wherein said second end of said tube has an eyepiece (see Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 4, Wallace discloses wherein said first end of said tube has a centering orifice for centering said tube over said camera (21) in said mobile communication device (2) (see Fig. 4, Col. 8, Lines 52-57).
Regarding claim 5, Wallace further discloses wherein said light and dark rings are sized and spaced based upon the radius of curvature of said curved surface (Col. 8, Line 43 – Col. 9, Line 8, Col. 9, Lines 34-49).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (USP No. 9,839,352) in view of Nabhan (USPG Pub No. 2018/0092534) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Segaram et al. (USPG Pub No. 2024/0268658), hereinafter “Segaram”.
Regarding claim 6, Wallace and Nabhan disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein said illuminating ring has more than one level of brightness. In the same field of endeavor, Segaram discloses wherein said illuminating ring has more than one level of brightness (Paragraph 62). 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 device of Wallace and Nabhan with wherein said illuminating ring has more than one level of brightness of Segaram for the purpose of providing additional illumination or reducing brightness for improved patient comfort (Paragraph 62).
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (USP No. 9,839,352) in view of Nabhan (USPG Pub No. 2018/0092534) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhao et al. (CN 110236485 B), hereinafter “Zhao”.
Regarding claim 7, Wallace and Nabhan disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify further includes determining an image size by counting the number of pixels across said second end of said tube. In the same field of endeavor, Zhao discloses further includes determining an image size by counting the number of pixels across said second end of said tube (Pg. 7, Lines 25-26 of translation provided). 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 device of Wallace and Nabhan with further includes determining an image size by counting the number of pixels across said second end of said tube of Zhao for the purpose of providing accurate image data for calculating the desired biological parameters while providing improved imaging quality (“Background”).
Regarding claim 8, Wallace, Nabhan and Zhao teach the device set forth above for claim 7, Zhao further discloses further includes scaling said image size with a diameter of said second end of said tube to determine an image resolution (Pg. 7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace and Nabhan with the teachings of Zhao for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 7.
Regarding claim 9, Wallace, Nabhan and Zhao teach the device set forth above for claim 8, Nabhan further discloses further includes using said resolution to determine a tear meniscus (Paragraphs 39, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace and Zhao with the teachings of Nabhan for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, Wallace, Nabhan and Zhao teach the device set forth above for claim 8, Nabhan further discloses further includes using said image to determine a roundness of said curved surface (Paragraphs 39, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace and Zhao with the teachings of Nabhan for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, Wallace, Nabhan and Zhao teach the device set forth above for claim 10, Nabhan further discloses wherein said roundness is determined by determining a center of said curved surface (Paragraphs 39, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace and Zhao with the teachings of Nabhan for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, Wallace, Nabhan and Zhao teach the device set forth above for claim 11, Nabhan further discloses further includes centering a grid on said center of said image (Paragraphs 39, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace and Zhao with the teachings of Nabhan for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, Wallace, Nabhan and Zhao teach the device set forth above for claim 12, Nabhan further discloses further includes defining edges of said plurality of light and dark ring (Paragraphs 39, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace and Zhao with the teachings of Nabhan for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Wallace, Nabhan and Zhao teach the device set forth above for claim 13, Nabhan further discloses further includes using said edges to determine said roundness and a concentricity of said curved surface (Paragraphs 39, 43). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace and Zhao with the teachings of Nabhan for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wallace (USP No. 9,839,352) in view of Nabhan (USPG Pub No. 2018/0092534) and Zhao (CN 110236485 B) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Segaram (USPG Pub No. 2024/0268658).
Regarding claim 15, Wallace, Nabhan and Zhao disclose the claimed invention, but do not specify wherein said roundness and said concentricity are determined by separating said image into at least 8 angular sectors. In the same field of endeavor, Segaram discloses wherein said roundness and said concentricity are determined by separating said image into at least 8 angular sectors (Paragraphs 93-96). 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 device of Wallace, Nabhan and Zhao with wherein said roundness and said concentricity are determined by separating said image into at least 8 angular sectors of Segaram for the purpose of providing an accurate analysis of the desired region of the eye (Paragraph 96).
Regarding claim 16, Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao and Segaram teach the device set forth above for claim 15, Segaram further discloses further includes converting said at least 8 angular sectors from cartesian to a polar image (Paragraphs 93-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao with the teachings of Segaram for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 15.
Regarding claim 17, Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao and Segaram teach the device set forth above for claim 16, Segaram further discloses further includes converting said polar image into nonoverlapping blocks of equal size (Paragraphs 93-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao with the teachings of Segaram for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 15.
Regarding claim 18, Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao and Segaram teach the device set forth above for claim 17, Segaram further discloses further includes processing said nonoverlapping blocks of equal size and determining deviation (Paragraphs 93-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao with the teachings of Segaram for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 15.
Regarding claim 19, Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao and Segaram teach the device set forth above for claim 18, Segaram further discloses further includes converting said deviation in said polar image into a processed cartesian image that shows imperfections of said roundness of said curved surface (Paragraphs 93-96). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao with the teachings of Segaram for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 15.
Regarding claim 20, Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao and Segaram teach the device set forth above for claim 19, Segaram further discloses further includes using said processed cartesian image to determine a tear film break-up (Paragraph 56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the device of Wallace, Nabhan, Zhao with the teachings of Segaram for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 15.
Prior Art Citations
Singh et al. (USPG Pub No. 2022/0313077) is being cited herein to show a smartphone Placido disc evaluation of tear film break-up device relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
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 9/23/2025