DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III, claims 16-20 in the reply filed on 10/28/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show an accurate description of identifying a specific identification or diagnosis of dry eye syndrome within Fig 7, Fig 8, and Fig 9 as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabhan (20180092534) in view of Perez (20140300862).
Regarding claim 16, Nabhan discloses (see at least Fig 2, [0009], [0011] [0034]-[0040], [0043] and [0045]) a method (Fig 3, [0034], ophthalmological instrument system 100) comprising: projecting by a projector (Fig 3, [0043], delivered images; delivery of the reflected ring projections) aligned over an eye (Fig 3, [0040], subject patient's head 200 is located to position an eye 202 to be observed) by an eye cup (Fig 3, [0035], frustum cone housing segment 50), a ring pattern (ring-light(s) 66a) on to an anterior surface of the eye ([0011], illuminating the eye through the frustum cone segment having a center); capturing by a camera a video of the anterior surface of the eye (Fig 3, [0045], video recordings of the subject patient 200); and processing (computer processor 20), by a machine capable of executing instructions embodied as software ([0043], software applications downloaded to and/or accessed by the smart-phone's processor(s) 20), a plurality of software portions ([0043]), wherein one of the software portions is configured to analyze the video ([0043], analyze captured, received, and/or delivered images) but does not teach treating dry eye syndrome; identifying one or more parameters indicative of a dry eye condition. However, in a similar endeavor, Perez teaches treating dry eye syndrome ([0039], monitor response to treatment; [0047], a treatment for DES); identifying one or more parameters indicative of a dry eye condition ([0039], observation that the corneal epithelium of patients with dry eye syndrome). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the ophthalmic treatment techniques of Nabhan with the parameters of Perez for the purpose of providing a system capable of providing high-resolution images of the eye and in particular the cornea (Perez, [0014]).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nabhan (20180092534) in view of Perez (20140300862) and in further view of Wang (20060109423).
Regarding claim 17, Nabhan in view of Perez discloses the invention as described within claim 16 but does not teach wherein one of the software portions is configured to identify an iris location, identify a lower tear meniscus location, and segment the video using the iris location, the lower tear meniscus location, and the ring pattern. However, Wang teaches wherein one of the software portions ([0034], processor 102 comprises software) is configured to identify an iris location ([0036], fast imaging of the anterior segments of the eye), identify a lower tear meniscus location (lower tear meniscus 508), and segment the video using the iris location, the lower tear meniscus location, and the ring pattern (Fig 4, [0066], physical structures are distinguishable in the OCT image 520). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was filed to combine the ophthalmic treatment techniques of Nabhan and Perez with the scanning features of Wang to increase the accuracy of a measurement (Wang, [0059]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18, 21, and 22 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 18, the prior art of Nabhan taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a method of treating dry eye syndrome including the specific arrangement: “wherein identifying includes performing a ring pattern deformation analysis to measure one or more of: a distortion heat map, a tear film breakup time, a tear meniscus height, and an optimal tear meniscus height, recognizing a plurality of eye blink events to measure an eye blink rate, and comparing an image of a corneal lip to an example interferometric pattern to recognize a corneal lip interferometric pattern”. Claims 21 and 22 are allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 18.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Fink (20210169321) and Coleman III (20130083185) are examples of a hand held ophthalmic examination tool.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872