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
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/01/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-16 and 21-22, in the reply filed on 11/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Claims 17-20 and 23-24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 11/07/2025.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 5, 13, 16, and 22 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.
Claim 5 recites that “the offset of the centre of the output aperture from the first optical axis is orthogonal to the offset of the illumination unit from the second optical axis.” However, claim 5 depends upon claim 1 which merely requires that “at least one of: the illumination unit is offset from the second optical axis and/or a centre of the output aperture of the adaptor is offset from the first optical axis.” As such, the claims do not positively require that both the output aperture and the illumination unit be offset. It is unclear if claim 5 is intended to positively require both to be offset or if one of the elements being offset would read on the claims. For the purposes of examination, any device having only one offset will be interpreted as reading on the claims.
Claim 13 recites “The adaptor of claim 1 in combination with a portable image capturing device including a camera, wherein the adaptor is attached to the portable image capturing device in a position such that optical radiation exiting the output aperture of the adaptor enters the camera of the portable image capturing device.” However, it is unclear how the invention of claim 13 is being defined. Specifically, it is unclear if claim 13 is intended to claim the adaptor or a device including both the adaptor and a portable image capturing device. It is unclear if the claim merely intends to recite an intended use of the adaptor, e.g. for use “in combination with a portable image capturing device…” As such, it is unclear what structure is required by the claim. For the purposes of examination, any adaptor meeting the structural requirements of claim 1 will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention of claim 13 as it would be capable of being used in combination with a portable image capturing device.
Claim 16 recites that “the offset, or at least one of the offsets, is adjustable.” However, claim 16 depends upon claim 1 which recites that “at least one of: the illumination unit is offset from the second optical axis and/or a centre of the output aperture of the adaptor is offset from the first optical axis.” As such, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the offset” in claim 16 as it is unclear which offset is being referred to as “the offset.” For the purposes of examination, claim 16 will be interpreted as requiring that at least one of the offsets is adjustable.
Claim 22 recites that “the polarizing beam splitter is configured such that maximum reflection occurs when optical radiation is incident at an angle of 45 degrees to a plane of the polarizing beam splitter and when the extinction ratio of the unpolarized to polarized optical radiation is at least 1:100 when optical radiation is incident at an angle of 25 degrees and 65 degrees to the plane of the polarizing beam splitter.” However, it is unclear what structure is required to meet such a limitation. Specifically, this limitation is unclear as it recites functional language without providing a discernable boundary on what element/structure of the polarizing beam splitter performs the function. Specifically, it is unclear if a specific material/structure/element must be present in the polarizing beam splitter to perform the function of providing the maximum reflection and extinction ratio. As such, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be discerned and the claim is unclear. See Ariad Pharmaceuticals., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1353, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc) (“Further, without reciting the particular structure, materials or steps that accomplish the function or achieve the result, all means or methods of resolving the problem may be encompassed by the claim”) (MPEP § 2173.05(g)).
Furthermore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the term “the extinction ratio of the unpolarized to polarized optical radiation,” as it is unclear that any unpolarized or polarized optical radiation should be provided and it is unclear how the extinction ratio should be defined.
For the purposes of examination, any polarizing beam splitter angled at 45 degrees to the illumination unit and/or objective lens will be interpreted as reading on the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1-11, 13-16, and 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0117064; hereinafter – “Fletcher”) in view of Lai (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2019/0038132).
Regarding claim 1, Fletcher teaches an adaptor for attachment to a portable image capturing device for capturing images of a retina of an eye (See e.g. Figs. 1-2 and 6), the adaptor comprising:
an illumination unit (44) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0044-0045);
a condensing lens system (34, 42) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0046-0047);
a beam splitter (32, 70) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0043-0047, 0054, 0056, and 0064);
an objective lens system (28) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0038-0041, 0044, and 0047-0048);
a secondary lens system (26) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0038-0041);
an output aperture (not labelled between 26 and 20) which is to be positioned adjacent a camera (20) of the portable image capturing device (16) (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; and 6; Paragraphs 0037-0038, 0054, 0056, and 0061-0067);
the illumination unit being configured to direct the optical radiation on an illumination path from the illumination unit through the condensing lens system to the beam splitter (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0044-0047);
the beam splitter being positioned between the objective lens system and the secondary lens system and being configured to direct the optical radiation on the illumination path to the objective lens system for illuminating the retina (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0043-0048 and 0054-0057);
the objective lens system being configured to focus the optical radiation on the illumination path onto a focal plane positioned between a cornea and a backside of a crystalline lens of the eye and direct optical radiation reflected from the retina on an imaging path to the secondary lens system (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0048-0049 and 0056-0057);
the secondary lens system being configured to direct the optical radiation on the imaging path through the output aperture; wherein the objective lens system and the secondary lens system share a first optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0038-0041 and 0056); and
wherein the condensing lens system has a second optical axis which is at an angle to the first optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0046-0047 and 0056).
Fletcher further teaches an additional illumination unit that is offset from the second optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0074-0077 and 0183). Nevertheless, Fletcher fails to explicitly disclose that at least one of: the illumination unit is offset from the second optical axis and/or a center of the output aperture of the adaptor is offset from the first optical axis.
However, Lai teaches an adaptor for an image capture device for fundus photography comprising an illumination unit (45, 47); a condensing lens system; an objective lens system (39); a secondary lens system (41); an output aperture (35) which is to be positioned adjacent a camera of the portable image capturing device; the illumination unit being configured to direct the optical radiation on an illumination path from the illumination unit through the condensing lens; the objective lens system being configured to focus the optical radiation on the illumination path onto a focal plane positioned between a cornea and a backside of a crystalline lens of the eye and direct optical radiation reflected from the retina on an imaging path to the secondary lens system; the secondary lens system being configured to direct the optical radiation on the imaging path through the output aperture; wherein the objective lens system and the secondary lens system share a first optical axis; wherein the condensing lens system has a second optical axis which is at an angle to the first optical axis; and wherein at least one of: the illumination unit is offset from the second optical axis and/or a centre of the output aperture of the adaptor is offset from the first optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0010, 0022, 0045-0049, 0058, 0065, 0069, and 0081).
Lai teaches this offset illumination unit and aperture such that “the beams diverge upon passing through the pupil 5 to cover and, hence, illuminate a wide area of the retina 9” (Paragraph 0058) in order “to provide an improved adaptor for a portable image acquisition device for fundus photography with a wider field of view” (Paragraph 0009).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Fletcher with the offset illumination unit and aperture of Lai such that “the beams diverge upon passing through the pupil 5 to cover and, hence, illuminate a wide area of the retina 9” in order “to provide an improved adaptor for a portable image acquisition device for fundus photography with a wider field of view,” as taught by Lai (Paragraphs 0009 and 0058).
Regarding claim 2, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Lai further teaches that an optical radiation source and/or an illumination aperture of the illumination unit is offset from the second optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0010, 0022, 0045-0049, 0058, 0065, 0069, and 0081).
Regarding claim 3, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that the focal plane is a pupil plane of the eye (See e.g. Fig. 1; Paragraph 0056: “This allows vertically polarized light to be reflected towards the ophthalmic/objective lens 28 which then forms an image of the mask near pupil 18”).
Regarding claim 4, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that the objective lens system, condensing lens system, beam splitter and the secondary lens system are configured such that non-overlapping real images of the illumination aperture of the illumination unit and the output aperture of the adaptor are formable on the focal plane (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0048-0049 and 0056-0057).
Additionally, Lai further teaches that the objective lens system, condensing lens system, beam splitter and the secondary lens system are configured such that non-overlapping real images of the illumination aperture of the illumination unit and the output aperture of the adaptor are formable on the focal plane (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0010, 0022, 0045-0049, 0058, 0065, 0069, and 0081).
Regarding claim 5, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Lai further teaches that the offset of the centre of the output aperture from the first optical axis is orthogonal to the offset of the illumination unit from the second optical axis (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0010, 0022, 0045-0049, 0058, 0065, 0069, and 0081).
Regarding claim 6, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Lai further teaches that the offset of the centre of the output aperture from the first optical axis is between 1 and 1.5mm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0060-0065).
Additionally, Examiner notes that given the alternative language of claim 1, an offset of the aperture is not positively required by the claim. Thus, the claimed limitation is met by an offset illumination unit without requiring an offset of the aperture. Thus, any device with an offset illumination unit, such as the one of Lai, would read on the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Lai further teaches that the offset of the illumination unit from the second optical axis is between 1 and 1.5 mm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0060-0065).
Lai additionally teaches the offset of the illumination unit from the second optical axis should be less than 12 mm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0060-0065) in order “to optimise fundus photography as it reduces backscattering of light caused by the patient's cornea 3 and lens 7” (Paragraph 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Fletcher such that the offset is between 1 and 1.5 mm in order “to optimise fundus photography as it reduces backscattering of light caused by the patient's cornea 3 and lens 7,” as taught by Lai (Paragraph 0066), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and since 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Moreover, such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component and “A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 8, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that the objective lens system is configured to form a real intermediate image of the retina between the objective lens system and the secondary lens system with the optical radiation reflected from the retina (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0048-0049 and 0056-0057).
Regarding claim 9, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that the secondary lens system is configured to output parallel light rays which are focusable by the camera of the portable image capturing device to form an image of the retina (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; and 6; Paragraphs 0037-0038, 0054, 0056, and 0061-0067).
Regarding claim 10, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches a first polarizer (38, 80) positioned between the illumination unit and the beam splitter and a second polarizer (30, 64) positioned between the objective lens system and the secondary lens system, wherein the first polarizer and the second polarizer have different polarizations (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0046, 0054, 0056, 0063-0064, and 0067).
Regarding claim 11, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that the beam splitter (32) is a polarizing beam splitter (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0046, 0054-0056, and 0064).
Regarding claim 13, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that in combination with a portable image capturing device including a camera, the adaptor is attached to the portable image capturing device in a position such that optical radiation exiting the output aperture of the adaptor enters the camera of the portable image capturing device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; and 6; Paragraphs 0037-0038, 0054, 0056, and 0061-0067).
Regarding claim 14, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches a housing (52a, 52b) including a distal end (52b) which is to be positioned a working distance away from the eye and a proximal end (52a) which is to be attached to the portable image capturing device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; and 6; Paragraphs 0037-0038, 0054, 0056, and 0061-0067).
Regarding claim 15, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 14, as above.
Fletcher further teaches a mount (56) which is separable from the housing, the mount being attachable to the housing and the portable image capturing device (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; and 6; Paragraphs 0037-0038, 0054, 0056, and 0061-0067).
Regarding claim 16, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that the offset, or at least one of the offsets, is adjustable (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0074-0077 and 0183).
Regarding claim 21, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that the objective lens system and the secondary lens system each contain at least one achromatic doublet lens (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0041 and 0135-0136).
Additionally, Lai further teaches that the objective lens system and the secondary lens system each contain at least one achromatic doublet lens (See e.g. Figs. 2-14; Paragraph 0046).
Regarding claim 22, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 11, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that the polarizing beam splitter is configured such that maximum reflection occurs when optical radiation is incident at an angle of 45 degrees to a plane of the polarizing beam splitter and when the extinction ratio of the unpolarized to polarized optical radiation is at least 1:100 when optical radiation is incident at an angle of 25 degrees and 65 degrees to the plane of the polarizing beam splitter (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0042-0043, 0046, 0054-0056, and 0064).
Claim(s) 6-7, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fletcher in view of Lai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alasaarela et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2015/0002817; hereinafter – “Alasaarela”).
Regarding claim 6, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Lai further teaches that the offset of the centre of the output aperture from the first optical axis is between 1 and 1.5mm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0060-0065).
Additionally, Examiner notes that given the alternative language of claim 1, an offset of the aperture is not positively required by the claim. Thus, the claimed limitation is met by an offset illumination unit without requiring an offset of the aperture. Thus, any device with an offset illumination unit, such as the one of Lai, would read on the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Alasaarela teaches an examination instrument an illumination unit (100); a condensing lens system (134); a beam splitter (102); an objective lens system (104); a secondary lens system (138); an output aperture (114) which is to be positioned adjacent a camera (136) of the portable image capturing device; the illumination unit being configured to direct the optical radiation on an illumination path from the illumination unit through the condensing lens system to the beam splitter; wherein at least one of: the illumination unit is offset from the second optical axis and/or a centre of the output aperture of the adaptor is offset from the first optical axis; and the offset of the centre of the output aperture from the first optical axis is between 1 and 1.5mm (See e.g. Figs. 2-6; Paragraphs 0053-0055).
Alasaarela teaches this offset distance to enable “a non-mydriatic imaging of an eye, the imaging resulting in glare-free images with a proper field-of-view” (Paragraph 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Fletcher such that the offset is between 1 and 1.5 mm in order to enable “a non-mydriatic imaging of an eye, the imaging resulting in glare-free images with a proper field-of-view,” as taught by Alasaarela (Paragraph 0011), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and since 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Moreover, such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component and “A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 7, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Lai further teaches that the offset of the illumination unit from the second optical axis is between 1 and 1.5 mm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0060-0065).
Lai additionally teaches the offset of the illumination unit from the second optical axis should be less than 12 mm (See e.g. Figs. 2-4, 6-7, and 13; Paragraphs 0060-0065) in order “to optimise fundus photography as it reduces backscattering of light caused by the patient's cornea 3 and lens 7” (Paragraph 0066).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Fletcher such that the offset is between 1 and 1.5 mm in order “to optimise fundus photography as it reduces backscattering of light caused by the patient's cornea 3 and lens 7,” as taught by Lai (Paragraph 0066), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and since 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Moreover, such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component and “A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Furthermore, Alasaarela teaches an examination instrument an illumination unit (100); a condensing lens system (134); a beam splitter (102); an objective lens system (104); a secondary lens system (138); an output aperture (114) which is to be positioned adjacent a camera (136) of the portable image capturing device; the illumination unit being configured to direct the optical radiation on an illumination path from the illumination unit through the condensing lens system to the beam splitter; wherein at least one of: the illumination unit is offset from the second optical axis and/or a centre of the output aperture of the adaptor is offset from the first optical axis; and the offset of the illumination unit from the second optical axis is between 1 and 1.5 mm (See e.g. Figs. 2-6; Paragraphs 0053-0055).
Alasaarela teaches this offset distance to enable “a non-mydriatic imaging of an eye, the imaging resulting in glare-free images with a proper field-of-view” (Paragraph 0011).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Fletcher such that the offset is between 1 and 1.5 mm in order to enable “a non-mydriatic imaging of an eye, the imaging resulting in glare-free images with a proper field-of-view,” as taught by Alasaarela (Paragraph 0011), since it has been held that where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists, In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976) (See MPEP 2144.05.I.), and since 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 (C.C.P.A. 1955). Moreover, such a modification would have involved a mere change in size of the component and “A change of size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.” In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (See MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Regarding claim 12, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher and Lai fail to explicitly disclose an imaging field aperture stop between the objective lens system and the beam splitter.
However, Alasaarela teaches an examination instrument an illumination unit (100); a condensing lens system (134); a beam splitter (102); an objective lens system (104); a secondary lens system (138); an output aperture (114) which is to be positioned adjacent a camera (136) of the portable image capturing device; the illumination unit being configured to direct the optical radiation on an illumination path from the illumination unit through the condensing lens system to the beam splitter; and an imaging field aperture stop (160) between the objective lens system and the beam splitter (See e.g. Figs. 1-2; Paragraphs 0076-0077 and 0087).
Alasaarela teaches this imaging field aperture stop “for blocking offensive stray light” and to “provide a well-defined illumination pupil and uniform and non-vignetted illumination to the retina” (Paragraph 0076).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Fletcher with the imaging field aperture stop of Alasaarela “for blocking offensive stray light” and to “provide a well-defined illumination pupil and uniform and non-vignetted illumination to the retina,” as taught by Alasaarela (Paragraph 0076).
Regarding claim 15, Fletcher in view of Lai teaches the adaptor of claim 1, as above.
Fletcher further teaches that the offset, or at least one of the offsets, is adjustable (See e.g. Figs. 1-5; Paragraphs 0074-0077 and 0183).
Additionally, Alasaarela teaches an examination instrument an illumination unit (100); a condensing lens system (134); a beam splitter (102); an objective lens system (104); a secondary lens system (138); an output aperture (114) which is to be positioned adjacent a camera (136) of the portable image capturing device; the illumination unit being configured to direct the optical radiation on an illumination path from the illumination unit through the condensing lens system to the beam splitter; wherein at least one of: the illumination unit is offset from the second optical axis and/or a centre of the output aperture of the adaptor is offset from the first optical axis; and wherein the offset, or at least one of the offsets, is adjustable (See e.g. Figs. 1-14 and 16-20; Paragraphs 0050, 0052, 0093, and 0102).
Alasaarela teaches this adjustable offset “such that the operator may freely guide the patients eye viewing direction without being restricted to the predetermined positions” (Paragraph 0102) and to enable “a non-mydriatic imaging of an eye, the imaging resulting in glare-free images with a proper field-of-view” (Paragraph 0011).
Therefore, even if Fletcher did not disclose an adjustable offset, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the adaptor of Fletcher such that the offset is adjustable as in Alasaarela “such that the operator may freely guide the patients eye viewing direction without being restricted to the predetermined positions” and to enable “a non-mydriatic imaging of an eye, the imaging resulting in glare-free images with a proper field-of-view,” as taught by Alasaarela (Paragraphs 0011 and 0102).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Stuchi et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2023/0337912) teaches a system, device, and method for portable, connected and intelligent eye imaging comprising an offset illumination unit.
Wallace et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2020/0390327) teaches a corneal topography system with an illumination unit offset from an optical axis.
Goldfain et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,078,226) teaches a portable eye viewing device enabled for enhanced field of view with an illumination unit offset from an optical axis.
Massie et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2017/0035294) teaches a wide-field retinal imaging system comprising a similar offset illumination unit.
Fletcher et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2016/0296112) teaches a retinal cellscope apparatus comprising a similar optical configuration.
Zhou (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2016/0205298) teaches a portable fundus camera that is used with a portable imaging device.
Coleman, III (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2013/0083185) teaches an optical adapter for ophthalmological imaging apparatus comprising an offset illumination unit.
Yates et al. (U.S. PG-Pub No. 2012/0229617) teaches a hand-held portable fundus camera for screening photography having a similar configuration.
Yogesan et al. (U.S. Patent No. 8,118,428) teaches an ophthalmic camera and ophthalmic camera adaptor with an adjustable offset illumination unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas R Pasko whose telephone number is (571)270-1876. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 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, William Kraig can be reached at 571-272-8660. 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.
Nicholas R. Pasko
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2896
/Nicholas R. Pasko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2896