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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered. Please see Roach (20130155474) which teaches image quality threshold and ROI selection in pars. 110-111 and pars. 85, 102-112 and 154-155.
Regarding claim 24, Hoyos repeats image receipt and eye detection after a repositioning prompt (pars. 108 and 169), and Roach repeats capture and quality testing after a failed threshold (pars. 103-111 and 154-155).
Regarding claim 12, the new rejection incorporates Wong (20210264585) for neural-network processing of contact-lens edge imagery and Leppard (20040008877) for detecting a missing contact lens and tracking its inner and outer edges.
Regarding claims 16-17, see Peled (20190325584), which uses a first subject detection neural network on image frames and a different subject tracking neural network on current and subsequent frames (pars. 44 and 47-54).
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 2-3 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 1 recites a first processing module, a second processing module, and a third processing module, but claims 2 and 3 recite 'the first, second, and third processors.' There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 13-15 and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos (20160117544) in view of Roach (20130155474) in further view of Fink (20180153399).
Regarding claim 1, Hoyos teaches determining, by a first processing module, if an object is present in a first image received from an image capture device of a mobile device (pars. 60, 62, 106 and 108, mobile module finds eye in frame);
if the object is determined to be present in the first image, then determining, by a second processing module, if the object meets at least one predetermined criterion (pars. 62 and 126, module checks center radius ranges);
wherein the at least one predetermined criterion includes at least one of a size and a location in an image (par. 126, iris radius and center ranges).
Hoyos does not expressly teach determining lighting and focus against a predetermined lighting and focus threshold, applying the recited failure branch, or conditioning the crop on passage of both the object criterion and the lighting and focus threshold.
Roach teaches determining whether lighting and focus of the first image meets a predetermined lighting and focus threshold (pars. 110-111, lighting and focus threshold comparisons);
if the object does not meet the at least one predetermined criterion or the lighting and focus of the first image does not meet the predetermined lighting and focus threshold, then determining, by a third processing module, at least one adjustment to be made (pars. 109-111, failed parameter prompts specific correction);
communicating an instruction to perform the at least one adjustment (pars. 111 and 154-160, correction instruction reaches mobile user);
if the object meets the at least one predetermined criterion and the lighting and focus of the first image meets the predetermined lighting and focus threshold, then cropping the first image to a region of interest around the object (pars. 85, 110-112 and 154-155, accepted suitable frame receives crop).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hoyos the threshold testing, corrective feedback, and accepted-frame processing taught by Roach. The reason is to prevent an incorrectly framed, poorly lit, or unfocused eye image from passing a threshold.
The combination of Hoyos and Roach does not teach for use in a medical evaluation to be performed at a location remote from the mobile device.
Fink teaches for use in a medical evaluation to be performed at a location remote from the mobile device (pars. 43, 52-55, 63 and 125, remote server performs ophthalmic evaluation).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hoyos and Roach the remote ophthalmic evaluation taught by Fink. The reason is to reduce evaluations caused by unusable uploads.
Regarding claim 2, see Hoyos pars. 60 and 62, one processor executes software modules.
Regarding claim 3, see pars. 188-190 and 213 of Fink.
Regarding claim 4, Roach teaches wherein the instruction to perform the at least one adjustment is communicated to a user using an audio output device (par. 160, spoken or audible corrective feedback).
Fink teaches wherein the image capture device is located on a side of the mobile device that is opposite a side on which a screen is disposed (par. 49, rear camera viewed on screen).
Regarding claim 5, Roach teaches wherein the instruction to perform the at least one adjustment is communicated to a user haptically (par. 160, vibration conveys image-quality feedback).
Fink teaches wherein the image capture device is located on a side of the mobile device that is opposite a side on which a screen is disposed (par. 49, rear camera viewed on screen).
Regarding claim 6, see Roach pars. 109 and 160, display presents corrective feedback.
Regarding claim 7, see Roach par. 111, feedback affirms thresholds are met.
Regarding claim 8, see Roach par. 160, tactile visual and audio feedback.
Regarding claim 9, see Roach pars. 103-111 and 154-155, failed image prompts recapture.
Regarding claim 10, see the rejection of claim 1 above and par. 61-64 of Hoyos.
Regarding claim 11, see Hoyos pars. 106 and 126, finds iris and pupil boundaries.
Regarding claim 13, see Roach pars. 155-159, user repositions camera for recapture.
Regarding claim 14, see Fink par. 49, rear camera viewed on screen.
Regarding claim 15, see Hoyos pars. 108 and 169, user repositions eye before recapture.
Regarding claim 18, see Roach pars. 100 and 112, passing image stored on device and pars. 100 and 110-112, passing size and position permit storage.
Regarding claim 19, see Hoyos, par. 166, image sequence detects blink.
Regarding claim 20, see Roach par. 160, audio tactile and displayed correction.
Regarding claim 21, see Roach pars. 110-111, feedback affirms size threshold passage.
Regarding claim 22, see Roach par. 160, tactile visual and audio feedback.
Regarding claim 23, see Roach pars. 103-111 and 154-155, failed image prompts recapture.
See Fink pars. 102-103, laterally displaced second ocular image.
Regarding claim 24, see Hoyos pars. 108-109, 126 and 169.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos (20160117544) in view of Roach (20130155474) in further view of Fink (20180153399) in further view of Wong (20210264585) in further view of Leppard (20040008877).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Hoyos, Roach, and Fink does not teach wherein the first object is a contact lens, and wherein determining if the contact lens is in the first image includes using a neural network to track an edge of the contact lens.
Wong teaches wherein the first object is a contact lens (par. 25, acquires high-resolution contact-lens image);
wherein determining if the contact lens is in the first image includes using a neural network (par. 25, lens-edge image feeds neural network).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hoyos, Roach, and Fink the contact lens neural network analysis taught by Wong. The reason is to automate recognition of the specific edge imagery.
The combination of Hoyos, Roach, Fink, and Wong does not expressly teach to track an edge of the contact lens.
Leppard teaches to track an edge of the contact lens (pars. 75 and 78-81, detects missing lens and tracks edge).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Wong, Hoyos, Roach and Fing the ability to configure Wong's neural network lens edge analysis to perform the contact lens edge tracking taught by Leppard. The reason is to detect whether the lens is present.
Claims 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoyos (20160117544) in view of Roach (20130155474) in further view of Fink (20180153399) in further view of Peled (20190325584).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Hoyos, Roach, and Fink does not teach wherein determining if the first object is in the first image includes using a first neural network.
Peled teaches wherein determining if the first object is in the first image includes using a first neural network (pars. 44, 47 and 49, detection network localizes each frame).
Regarding claim 17, Peled teaches wherein the method includes tracking the first object in at least one second image obtained from the image capture device using a second neural network that is different from the first neural network (pars. 50-54, separate tracking network uses later frames).
It would have been obvious prior to the effective filing date of the invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to include in Hoyos, Roach, and Fink the separate detection and tracking neural networks as taught by Peled. The reason is to preserve object location across later frames.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cook (20150379253) teaches cropping an image based on thresholds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HADI AKHAVANNIK whose telephone number is (571)272-8622. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM - 5 PM Monday to Friday.
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, Henok Shiferaw can be reached at (571) 272-4637. 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.
/HADI AKHAVANNIK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676
Prosecution Insights