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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 3-12, 14 and 15 under Choo (US Patent Publication Number 2009/0303442 A1) and Simard (WO Patent Publication Number 2019/102415 A1; used US Patent Publication Number 2020/0363654 A1 as an English equivalent) have been fully considered and are persuasive. A new 101 rejection for claims 1, 3-12, 14 and 15 has been issued.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1,3-12, 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recites obtaining an initial value… determining a second value… evaluating and comparing steps of the method claim). Thus, this limitation is a mental process. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are drawn to evaluating and processing data and there are no further details. Therefore, the claims are directed to the abstract idea. The claims does include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because There is nothing in the claim precludes the design step from practically being performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
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, 8-11, 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Choo (US Patent Publication Number 2009/0303442 A1).
Choo teaches, as claimed in claim 1, a method of evaluating the efficiency of a myopia control solution for a person (Fig. 1 see steps 104,126, 135-137), the method comprising obtaining an initial value prolateness indicator (¶0132 “a shape factor of p=0.80”, ¶0073 “in the former (0≤ p≤1), the ellipse is said to be "prolate" or a flattening ellipse”, Fig. 1, box 104) of at least one eye of the person (¶0132 “patient”) determining a second value of said prolateness indicator (¶0133 “a shape factor of 2.537”, Fig. 1, box 126) of said at least one eye of the person after having the person use the myopia control solution over a given period of time1 (¶0049 “a patient specific orthokeratology lens is fitted to the patient…to thereby initiate myopia therapy”), and evaluating the efficiency of the myopia control solution by comparing the evolution between the initial and second values of the prolateness indicator of said at least one eye with a value of reference (Fig. 1, box 137, Fig. 8 and 9 shows the depictions of the focus of an eye before and after treatment), wherein the prolateness indicator is determined over a given angular zone of the retina of the person2 (¶ 0154 “Axial Distance=0 mm represents the retina. Curvature of field is seen as a change in the image surface position relative to the retina as field angle increase”).
Choo teaches, as claimed in claim 8, wherein the myopia control solution is selected among the list consisting of myopia control optical lenses (¶0124 “a lens is designed for corneal reshaping”).
Choo teaches, as claimed in claim 9, obtaining an initial value of an axial length indicator (axial distance) of at least one eye of the person (Fig. 8, axial distance = -0.2), and determining a second value (axial distance =0 is Fig. 9) of said axial length indicator of said at least one eye of the person after having the person use the myopia control solution over the same given period of time as the prolateness indicator (Fig 9, axial distance =0), and wherein evaluating the efficiency of the myopia control solution further comprises comparing the evolution between the initial and second values of the axial length indicator of said at least one eye with a value of reference (Table 1 and Figs. 8 and 9).
Choo teaches, as claimed in claim 10, obtaining an initial value of a refractive indicator (¶0136 “-7.00 D was assumed for the peripheral refractive state) of at least one eye of the person (myopic patient”) and determining a second value of said refractive indicator (¶0136 “it was decided to enhance the myopia therapy effect by introducing an additional amount of myopic peripheral defocus of +1.00 D”) of said at least one eye of the person after having the person use the myopia control solution over the same given period of time as the prolateness indicator (¶0049 “a patient specific orthokeratology lens is fitted to the patient…to thereby initiate myopia therapy”)3, and wherein evaluating the efficiency of the myopia control solution further comprises comparing the evolution between the initial and second values of the refractive indicator of said at least one eye with a value of reference (¶0071 and 0072 and Fig. 2), wherein the prolateness indicator is determined over a given angular zone of the retina of the person4(¶ 0154 “Axial Distance=0 mm represents the retina. Curvature of field is seen as a change in the image surface position relative to the retina as field angle increase”).
Choo teaches, as claimed in claim 11, at least one myopia control solution for a person, comprising evaluating the efficiency of each myopia control solution for the person using selecting myopia control solution based on evaluating (¶0053-0055 “patient's response may be monitored and the design of the corneal reshaping device adjusted to optimize the treatment effect”).
Choo teaches, as claimed in claim 12, a method for determining eye growth (¶0155), wherein the eye growth is determined by measuring over time a prolateness indicator (Fig.8 and Fig. 9, Untreated Cornea and Reshaped Cornea) of said eye (“Cornea”) in addition to measuring over time the axial length (¶0154 “Axial Distance=0 mm” Fig. 8 and 9) of said eye (“Cornea”), wherein the prolateness indicator is determined over a given angular zone of the retina of the person5(¶ 0154 “Axial Distance=0 mm represents the retina. Curvature of field is seen as a change in the image surface position relative to the retina as field angle increase”).
Choo teaches, as claimed in claim 14, a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor causes the processor to carry out the method (¶0052, 0062 and 0067).
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choo (US Patent Publication Number 2009/0303442 A1) in view of Lin (“Two-dimensional peripheral refraction and retinal image quality in orthokeratology lens wearers”).
Choo fails to teach, as claimed in claim 3, wherein the prolateness indicator is determined at least over the nasal region of the retina of the person. In a related art, Lin teaches wherein the prolateness indicator is determined at least over the nasal region of the retina of the person (Page 3526, paragraph 3 “relative hyperopia in the horizontal direction (+1.0D to + 1.7D at 25° to 30°) between the temporal and nasal retina”)6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the myopia control solution, as taught by Choo, with a prolateness indicator, as taught by Lin, for the purpose of providing a way so the cornea is reshaped with thicker mid-peripheral epithelium and thinner central epithelium (Page 3524, paragraph 1).
Choo fails to teach, as claimed in claim 4, wherein the prolateness indicator is determined at least over the temporal region of the retina of the person. In a related art, Lin teaches wherein the prolateness indicator is determined at least over the temporal region of the retina of the person (Page 3526, paragraph 3 “relative hyperopia in the horizontal direction (+1.0D to + 1.7D at 25° to 30°) between the temporal and nasal retina”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the myopia control solution, as taught by Choo, with a prolateness indicator, as taught by Lin, for the purpose of providing a way so the cornea is reshaped with thicker mid-peripheral epithelium and thinner central epithelium (Page 3524, paragraph 1).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choo (US Patent Publication Number 2009/0303442 A1) in view of Sankaridurg (“US Patent Publication Number 2020/0183185 A1).
Choo fails to teach, as claimed in claim 7, which includes wherein the prolateness indicator is determined based on a 3D measurement of the retina of said at least one eye of the person. In a related art, Sankaridurg teaches wherein the prolateness indicator is determined based on a 3D measurement of the retina of said at least one eye of the person (¶0043 “For measurements of peripheral eye length7 along various meridians… corresponding peripheral retinal location” and ¶0046 “measurements may be taken with a device to measure eye length on-axis and at various angles off axis for example using an IOLMaster8”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the myopia control solution, as taught by Choo, with a 3D measurement, as taught by Sankaridurg, for the purpose of providing a way so the eye length may be measured at various locations (¶0043).
Claim 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simard (WO Patent Publication Number 2019/102415 A1; used US Patent Publication Number 2020/0363654 A1 as an English equivalent) in view of Choo (US Patent Publication Number 2009/0303442 A1).
Simard teaches, as claimed in claim 13, a system for determining eye growth (¶0148 “the rate of growth of the ocular axial length”), the system comprising at least a measuring device (¶0147 “measured pupil diameter to obtain the diameter of the pupil that would have been measured under photopic conditions9”) configured to measure and store over time an eye length indicator of an eye10(¶0147 “measured pupil diameter to obtain the diameter of the pupil that would have been measured under photopic conditions while the patient is looking at distance”) and a device for processing ( ¶0149 “fast progressor”) the eye length indicator ( ¶0149 “a pupil diameter of 6 mm”) of the eye over time to determine a prolateness indicator (¶0149 ”a lens designed with an area covered by the central region and the intermediary region of 2.68 mm diameter (20%)”) for determining eye growth, Simard fails to teach wherein the prolateness indicator is determined over a given angular zone of the retina of the person. In a related art, Choo teaches wherein the prolateness indicator is determined over a given angular zone of the retina of the person 11(¶0154 “Axial Distance=0 mm represents the retina. Curvature of field is seen as a change in the image surface position relative to the retina as field angle increase”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system for determining eye growth, as taught by Simard, with a 3D measurement, as taught by Choo, for the purpose of providing a way so the eye length may be measured at various locations (¶0043).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choo (US Patent Publication Number 2009/0303442 A1) in view of Friedman (US Patent Publication Number 2013/0085370 A1).
Choo fails to teach, as claimed in claim 15, a computer readable medium carrying one or more sequences of instructions of the computer program product. In a related art, Friedman teaches a non- transitory computer-readable storage medium including computer executable instructions, wherein the instructions, when executed by a processor causes the processor to carry out the method (¶0088).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the myopia control solution, as taught by Choo, with a computer readable medium, as taught by Friedman, for the purpose of providing a way of enabling the devices and subsystems to interact with a human use (¶0088).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
19 February 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 an orthokeratology lens reshapes the cornea overnight.
2 Defining the retina at an axial distance of 0 mm (often relative to a modeled center or reference point) frequently represents a prolate ellipsoid shape over an angular zone, since 0 mm is the reference point, represents where the retina is located.
3 An orthokeratology lens reshapes the cornea overnight.
4 Defining the retina at an axial distance of 0 mm (often relative to a modeled center or reference point) frequently represents a prolate ellipsoid shape over an angular zone, since 0 mm is the reference point, represents where the retina is located.
5 Defining the retina at an axial distance of 0 mm (often relative to a modeled center or reference point) frequently represents a prolate ellipsoid shape over an angular zone, since 0 mm is the reference point, represents where the retina is located.
6 peripheral hyperopia is considered an indicator of a prolate.
7 Peripheral eye length is an indicator of prolateness.
8 IOL Master provides 3D measurements
9 The device used to measure a pupil diameter and to obtain the diameter of the pupil under photopic conditions a pupillometer.
10 A pupillometer is designed to measure pupil size and reactivity over time and store this data.
11 Defining the retina at an axial distance of 0 mm (often relative to a modeled center or reference point) frequently represents a prolate ellipsoid shape over an angular zone, since 0 mm is the reference point, represents where the retina is located.