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
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 1/18/2024, 1/23/2024, and 10/24/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 2/4/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 2/4/2026 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mao et al. (2019/0206054), hereinafter Mao.
Regarding claim 1, Mao discloses, in figures 1, 5, and 9, a method for characterizing floaters (paragraph 0022) comprising: receiving, by a computing device, one or more images of a patient's eye (100, capture fundus image, paragraph 0027 and 902, horizontal image of a retina, paragraph 0040); identifying, by the computing device, one or more shaded regions (104, identify ROI, region of interest, paragraph 0027 and 904, identify ROI from the horizontal retina image, paragraph 0040) in the one or more images (paragraphs 0027 and 0040); processing, by the computing device, the one or more shaded regions to obtain one or more (ROI, regions of interest) measurements of the one or more shaded regions (906, measurements of the ROI locations) (paragraph 0040); and processing, by the computing device, the one or more measurements using a machine learning model to obtain an estimated clinical significance of floaters in the patient's eye (908, the data from the measurements and imaging are analyzed and reported; paragraph 0040 and paragraph 0027 discloses machine learning system produces an output (e.g., a retinopathy) based on an input image (e.g., a fundus image of the eye) can be used to identify regions of the image (and correspondingly, the eye) having an abnormality that likely caused the machine learning system to output the particular retinopathy associated with the abnormality).
Regarding claim 2, Mao discloses wherein the one or more measurements include a size of each of the one or more shaded regions (paragraph 0004 discloses the area size of the ROI and paragraph 0042 discloses limiting scan area of the ROI; which mean a smaller area size).
Regarding claim 3, Mao discloses wherein the one or more measurements include a contrast of each of the one or more shaded regions (paragraph 0037 discloses variations in color shade, hue with some regions having a darker shade).
Regarding claim 4, Mao discloses wherein the one or more images include a series of frames (paragraph 0022 discloses multimodal imaging systems capable of taking multiple images).
Regarding claim 9, Mao discloses wherein the one or more images include images from one of a scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) and an optical coherence tomography (OCT) microscope (paragraph 0022 discloses OCT imaging).
Regarding claim 10, Mao discloses wherein the estimated clinical significance of the floaters in the patient's eye comprises a selection from a set of possible output categories (paragraphs 0024 , 0027-0028, and 0044).
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao et al. (20019/0206054), hereinafter Mao as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Laksono et al. (2015/0279418), hereinafter Laksono.
Regarding claim 5, Mao discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Mao does not disclose wherein the one or more measurements include a direction of movement of each of the one or more shaded regions.
Laksono discloses wherein the one or more measurements include a direction of movement of each of the one or more shaded regions (paragraph 0035 discloses fovea tracking to determine regions of interest).
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 device of Mao with the measurements of Laksono for the purpose of to determining regions of interest.
Regarding claim 6, Laksono discloses wherein the direction of movement indicates only movement toward or away from a fovea of the patient's eye (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 7, Laksono discloses wherein the one or more measurements include a location of each of the one or more shaded regions relative to a fovea of the patient's eye (paragraph 0035).
Regarding claim 8, Mao discloses wherein the one or more images include a series of video frames (paragraph 0028 discloses a convolution neural network; which is a image and video recognition); and wherein the one or more measurements include all of: a size of each of the one or more shaded regions (paragraph 0004 discloses the area size of the ROI and paragraph 0042 discloses limiting scan area of the ROI; which mean a smaller area size); a contrast of each of the one or more shaded regions (paragraph 0037 discloses variations in color shade, hue with some regions having a darker shade).
Mao does not disclose a direction of movement of each of the one or more shaded regions; and a location of each of the one or more shaded regions relative to a representation of a fovea of the patient's eye in the one or more images.
Laksono discloses a direction of movement of each of the one or more shaded regions (paragraph 0035 discloses fovea tracking to determine regions of interest); and a location of each of the one or more shaded regions relative to a representation of a fovea of the patient's eye in the one or more images (paragraph 0035).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights