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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 11/20/2025 has been entered. Claim 3 has been canceled. Claim 7 has been added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/20/2025 have been fully considered and are appreciated but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, applicant’s arguments regarding the limitation of the controller being configured to receive “a first operation input in the first region, by a user,” and “a second operation input in the first region, by the user,” not being taught by Ono in view of Ishiai, the arguments in combination with the amendments are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Ono in view of Ishiai and further in view of Endo (JP 2017176545 A, cited in the previous office action).
Regarding applicant’s arguments that neither Ono nor Ishiai teaches of suggests displaying scan lines in the first region, the examiner notes ¶0321 of Ono, which states: “At such time, a configuration may be adopted so that a line indicating the position of the tomographic image is displayed in a superimposed manner on the fundus front image. Furthermore, a configuration may be adopted so that the aforementioned line can be moved on the fundus front image according to an instruction from the examiner.” Although Ono only discloses superimposing the line on the fundus image, it would have been obvious from the combination with Ishiai which switches between displaying a fundus image and anterior segment image, to superimpose a scan line on the anterior segment image in the first region as well.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Ono has “no disclosure of anterior segment OCT imaging or changing the roles of these regions based on the imaging mode,” and that “Ishiai, while teaching physical mode switching between fundus and anterior segment photography using an attachment unit, is solely concerned with preventing photography errors when the attachment state doesn’t match the selected mode and provides no teaching regarding user interface configuration or display region functionality in different modes,” and therefore a user would not arrive at the claimed configuration, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Ishiai teaches that is known to switch between a fundus imaging mode and anterior segment imaging mode upon using a changing means to focus the light onto the fundus or the anterior segment. Ono discloses both alignment control and scan positioning. Therefore, it would be obvious for both of these functions to be available in both imaging modes.
Regarding claim 7, applicant argues the cited art fails to teach any “first region” that displays only the specific combination of the claimed features. However, in the new rejection, the first region (402; Fig. 4 of Ono) shows only the image obtained by the observing optical system. Further, ¶0321 of Ono teaches superimposing a scan line on the image, therefore this limitation is also taught.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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) 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ono et al. (US 20220151483 A1), hereinafter Ono, in view of Ishiai et al. (US 20170224213 A1), hereinafter Ishiai, and further in view of Endo et al. (JP 2017176545 A), hereinafter Endo.
Regarding independent claim 1, Ono discloses an OCT apparatus comprising:
an OCT optical system (L1; Fig. 2; ¶0046) configured to irradiate an imaging site of an examinee's eye (E; Fig. 2) with measurement light (Fig. 2), the OCT optical system (L1) being configured to detect a spectral coherence signal between the measurement light and a reference light (¶0003, ¶0303);
an observing optical system (L2; Fig. 2; ¶0046) configured to irradiate the imaging site with observation light (Fig. 2), the observing optical system (L2) being configured to acquire a front image (¶0041) of the imaging site based on reflected light of observation light from the imaging site (Fig. 2);
a driving part (¶0040) configured to move an imaging unit (100; Fig. 2; ¶0040) including the OCT optical system (L1) and the observing optical system (L2) with respect to the examinee's eye (E) (Fig. 1; ¶0040); and
a controller (20; Fig. 1; ¶0039), wherein
the controller (20) is configured to operate in a fundus mode (this is just a definition of the state the controller is in, additionally this is the default mode of Ono because observing optical system L2 is observing the fundus to display in the first region, as stated below) when the fundus is selected as the imaging site (402; Fig. 4; ¶0041),
in the fundus mode, the controller (20) is configured to:
display, in a first region (402; Fig. 4; ¶0071), a front image of the fundus sequentially acquired through the observing optical system (L2) (Fig. 4; ¶0071) and a first scan line (¶0321 states “At such time, a configuration may be adopted so that a line indicating the position of the tomographic image is displayed in a superimposed manner on the fundus front image. Furthermore, a configuration may be adopted so that the aforementioned line can be moved on the fundus front image according to an instruction from the examiner.”) , and
receive a first operation input for controlling the driving part (¶0090) and receive a second operation input in the first region (402), by the user, for changing a scan position on the fundus in an XY direction (¶0321).
Ono does not disclose the controller is configured to operate in an anterior segment mode when the anterior segment is selected as the imaging site, in the anterior segment mode, the controller is configured to: display, in the first region, a front image of the anterior segment sequentially acquired through the observing optical system and a first scan line, and receive a first operation input in the first region, by a user, for controlling the driving part.
However, Ishiai teaches a similar OCT apparatus with an OCT optical system (21; Fig. 1; ¶0021) and an observing optical system (22; Fig. 1; ¶0021), a driving part (5; Fig. 1; ¶0027), and a controller (7; Fig. 1; ¶0027) configured to operate in a fundus mode and an anterior segment mode (Fig. 3), and further comprising a changing means (4; Fig. 1; ¶0025-¶0026) configured to change the imaging site in the OCT optical system (21) and the observing optical system (22) between a fundus of the examinee's eye and an anterior segment (Fig. 3; ¶0026). This would result in the controller having a fundus mode and anterior segment mode, and due to the changing means being an attachment that changes whether the light is focused on the fundus or the anterior segment, it would be obvious for the controller to still have all the same operations whether in the fundus mode or in the anterior segment mode (specifically, the functionality of being able to display the image in the first region and superimpose a scan line and receive an input for changing the scan position and for controlling the driving part would be present whether in the fundus mode or the anterior segment mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to incorporate the changing means and controller with a fundus mode and an anterior segment mode as taught by Ishiai for the purpose of being able to examine both the fundus and the anterior segment in an appropriate imaging mode without additional imaging (¶0005-¶0006 of Ishiai).
Ishiai does not teach the first operation input is received in the first region, by the user, for controlling the driving part.
However, Endo teaches a similar OCT apparatus (Figs. 1-2), comprising an optical system (2; Figs. 1-2; ¶0011) configured to irradiate an eye (Figs. 1-2), a driving part (4; Figs. 1-2; ¶0011) configured to move the optical system (2) (Figs. 1-2; ¶0011), and a controller (70; Figs. 1-2; ¶0011), configured to display an image of the eye in a first region (75; Figs. 3-10; ¶0014) and receive an operation unit in the first region (75), by the user, for controlling the driving part (4) (Figs. 3-10; ¶0016, ¶0031, ¶0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono and Ishiai to incorporate the touch panel as taught by Endo such that the controller receives an operation input in the first region by the user for controlling the driving part for the purpose of efficiently being able to examine a desired part of the eye.
Regarding claim 2, Ono in view of Ishiai and further in view of Endo discloses the OCT apparatus according to claim 1, including the controller operating in the anterior segment mode, and the controller being configured to receive an operation input in the first region by a user for controlling the driving part, as set forth above. Neither Ono nor Ishiai disclose the controller receives an operation input that specifies a specified position on the front image of the anterior segment in the first region through a mouse or touchscreen display, and the controller moves the imaging unit in an XY direction with respect to the examinee's eye such that tissue of the anterior segment displayed at the specified position is displayed at a predetermined position in the first region.
However, Endo teaches the controller (70) receives an operation input that specifies a specified position on the front image of the anterior segment in the first region (75) through a mouse or touchscreen display (Figs. 3-10; ¶0031), and the controller (70) moves the imaging unit in an XY direction with respect to the examinee's eye (¶0016) such that tissue of the anterior segment displayed at the specified position is displayed at a predetermined position in the first region (75) (Figs. 3-10; ¶0016, ¶0031, ¶0074).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono and Ishiai to incorporate the touch panel as taught by Endo such that the controller receives an operation input in the first region by the user for controlling the driving part for the purpose of efficiently being able to examine a desired part of the eye.
Regarding claim 4, Ono in view of Ishiai and further in view of Endo discloses the OCT apparatus according to claim 1, including the controller operating in a fundus mode and an anterior segment mode, as set forth above. Ono further discloses a second observing optical system (L3; Fig. 2; ¶0046) different from the observing optical system (L2) (Fig. 2; ¶0046), the second observing optical system (L3) being configured to observe the anterior segment of the examinee's eye (Fig. 4; ¶0046, ¶0071) when the controller (20) is operating in the fundus mode (default mode of Ono as explained above in the rejection of claim 1), wherein when the controller (20) is operating in the fundus mode, the controller (20) displays, in a second region (401; Fig. 4; ¶0071), the front image of the anterior segment sequentially acquired through the second observing optical system (L3) as a second observation image (Fig. 4; ¶0071).
Regarding claim 5, Ono in view of Ishiai and further in view of Endo discloses the OCT apparatus according to claim 4, as set forth above. Neither Ono, Ishiai, nor Endo disclose when the controller is operating in the anterior segment mode, the controller stops display control of the second observation image in the second region.
However, there are only two possibilities – that the controller continues display control of the second observation image in the second region or the controller stops display control of the second observation image in the second region. It has been held that where there are only a finite number of predictable identifiable solutions, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to try the known options within his or her technical grasp. KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the controller stop display control of the second observation image in the second region for the purpose of not having a blurry and out of focus image of the anterior segment displayed in the second region.
Regarding claim 6, Ono in view of Ishiai and further in view of Endo discloses the OCT apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above. Ono further discloses on the screen (40), a third region (403) is disposed together with the first region (402) (Fig. 4; ¶0071), and the controller (40) displays, in the third region (403), a live image by an OCT image of the examinee's eye sequentially acquired through the OCT optical system (L1) (Fig. 4; ¶0071).
Regarding claim 7, Ono in view of Ishiai and further in view of Endo discloses the OCT apparatus according to claim 1, including the controller operating in a fundus mode and anterior segment mode, as set forth above. Ono further discloses the first region (402) displays only: the front image of the fundus (Fig. 4) and the at least one second scan line when in the fundus mode (¶0321 states including a scan line).
Since Ono does not disclose the anterior segment mode, Ono does not explicitly disclose the first region displays only: the front image of the anterior segment and the first scan line when in the anterior segment mode, however, with the anterior segment mode and changing means of Ishiai, it would be obvious for the first region to display the front image of the anterior segment and the first scan line (see claim 1 rejection above regarding functionality of controller in both fundus mode and anterior segment mode).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ono to incorporate the changing means and controller with a fundus mode and an anterior segment mode as taught by Ishiai for the purpose of being able to examine both the fundus and the anterior segment in an appropriate imaging mode without additional imaging (¶0005-¶0006 of Ishiai).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. McMorrow et al. (US 20230184536 A1) discloses a similar OCT apparatus wherein a scan line is superimposed on the image on the display. Keyence (Keyence. "Digital Microscope VHX-5000 Quick Guide: Instantly Observe Any Object Entirely in Focus: The New Standard for Mi.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5.
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.
/NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 February 25th, 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872