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 .
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are various instances where the specification refers to a “slim beam” which appears to be a typographical error of “slit beam”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
Figure 2(a) does not comply with CFR 1.84(p, q) - the number/letters/characters are too small; the lead lines appear disconnected with any labels or incorrect labels.
Figure 2(b) does not comply with CFR 1.84 (m, q) - the lead line of (14) crosses with the indication circle; the shading of the photograph renders unclear what the elements being referred to are
Figure 3 does not comply with CFR 1.84(p, q) - the numbers/letters/characters are too small; there is a lead line to nothing.
Figure 7a does not comply with CFR 1.84(m) - the shading of the photograph renders unclear what the object of 100 is.
Figure 7b does not comply with CFR 1.84(m) - the shading reduces legibility
Figures 8a,b do not comply with CFR 1.84(l, m) - the shading reduces legibility; the characters, numbers, letters are not clean, dark, durable
Figure 14 does not comply with CFR 1.84(m) - the shading reduces legibility
Figures 15a,b do not comply with CFR 1.84(l, m) - the shading reduces legibility; the lines, numbers, letters are not clean, dark, durable
Figure 16 (filed Nov. 9, 2023) does not comply with CFR 1.84(l) - the characters, numbers, letters are not clean. It appears there are fax artifacts smudging the text
Figure 25 (filed Nov. 9, 2023) does not comply with CFR 1.84(l) - the characters, numbers, letters are not clean. It appears there are fax artifacts smudging the text
Figure 26 does not comply with (l, m, p) - shading reduces legibility, characters, numbers, letters are too small and are not clean, durable, black.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the:
a) first member (claim 1, 15)
b) connecting member (claim 1)
c) second member (claim 1, 15)
d) a transceiver (claim 2)
e) end device (claim 2, 7)
f) bearings (claim 4)
g) reflective sensor (claim 9, 11)
h) optical sensor, slotted disk (claim 10, 19)
i) ECKO sensor (claim 12)
j) Wiegand sensor (claim 13)
k) Hall-effect sensor (claim 14)
l) remote device (claim 18)
m) slotted disk (claim 10)
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) connecting member (means for connecting)…in claim 1
b) slit beam rotation mechanism (means for slit beam rotation)…in claim 1, 15
c) a second member for connecting…in claim 1
d) a sensor…to measure relative rotation…in claim 1
e) a controller for receiving…in claim 1
f) a transceiver for sending…in claim 2
g) a housing receiving and providing pivotal connection…in claim 3
h) remote device for performing…in claim 18
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-20 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.
As to claim 1, the claim limitation “connecting member…”; “slit beam rotation mechanism…”; “a second member for connecting” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
I) As to the connecting member, Applicant’s specification does not clearly link what the connecting member is and how it performs the function of connecting a first member to a slit beam rotation mechanism
II) As to the slit beam rotation mechanism, Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure to the slit beam rotation mechanism to rotate a slit beam
III) As to the second member, Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure to perform the function of connecting to a stationary part
As to claim 2, the claim limitation “transceiver for sending” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant’s specification does not disclose any structure for transceiving/sending an output signal.
As to claim 3, the claim limitation “a housing receiving and providing pivotal connection” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant’s specification fails to provide an structure for providing pivotal connection.
As to claim 15, the claim limitation “slit beam rotation mechanism” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant’s specification does not provide any structure to the slit beam rotation mechanism to rotate a slit beam.
As to claim 18, the claim limitation “remote device for performing” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
Applicant’s specification fails to provide any structure/algorithm of a remote device determining an angle of the slit light (MPEP 2181.II.B).
Therefore, the claims are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are rejected as dependent upon claims 1 or 15.
As to claim 1, the claim recites “at a proximity of said first member” which is a relative/subjective term that renders the claim indefinite (MPEP 2173.05(b)). The term “proximity of” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Specifically, such language appears subjective as to how far or near a “proximity” is. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand that so long as the art teaches a second member being part of the system, such second member is necessarily at a proximity of the first member.
As to claim 6, the claim recites “said angle of the slit light” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 7, the claim recites “said user interface” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 10, the claim recites “said optical sensor” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 17, the claim recites “said sensor” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 18, the claim recites “said angle reference point” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 18, the claim recites “said registered rotary position” which lacks antecedent basis.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-3, 6-7, 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Reyburn (US 5,926,252).
As to claim 1, Reyburn teaches a slit light angle measurement system for use with a slit lamp (Reyburn Figs. 1-2B - 40), comprising
a first member for connecting to a slit beam rotation mechanism of said slit lamp using a connecting member (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 40, 41, 14, 100; col. 2:25-35; col. 2:55-62), wherein changes in an angle of a slit beam of said slit lamp creates rotation in said first member corresponding to said changes of said angle in the slit beam (Reyburn Fig. 2A - 40, 42, 14, 100; col. 2:55-67; col. 3:1-20)
a second member for connecting to a stationary part of the slit lamp at a proximity of said first member (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 36, 41, 14, 100, 40)
a sensor connected to one of said first member and second member to measure relative rotation of said first member and second member and providing an output signal corresponding to the rotation (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 40, 100; Fig. 2B - 48, 42, 14; col. 2:63-67; col. 3:1-20; col. 3:54-65);
a controller for receiving said output signal and determining an angle of the slit light from a reference point (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 40, 100; Fig. 2B - 48, 42, 14; col. 2:63-67; col. 3:1-20; col. 3:54-65).
As to claim 2, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Reyburn further teaches a transceiver for sending the output signal to an end device wherein said controller is a controller of the end device (Reyburn col. 3:54-65 - This sensor electronically activates and displays a digital readout of the angle of slit lamp beam's rotation on a screen (not shown) to be viewed by the clinician).
As to claim 3, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Reyburn further teaches a housing receiving and providing pivotal connection between the first member and the second member (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 14, 40, 41; Fig. 2A - 40, 14, 42; col. 2:50-63).
As to claim 6, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Reyburn further teaches the transceiver communicates with an interface showing the angle of the slit light (Reyburn col. 3:54-65 - This sensor electronically activates and displays a digital readout of the angle of slit lamp beam's rotation on a screen (not shown) to be viewed by the clinician).
As to claim 7, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Reyburn further teaches the controller is a processor of an end device and wherein the user interface is an interface of the end device (Reyburn col. 3:54-65 - This sensor electronically activates and displays a digital readout of the angle of slit lamp beam's rotation on a screen (not shown) to be viewed by the clinician).
As to claim 15, Reyburn further teaches a method for measuring an angle of a slit beam using a slit lamp (Reyburn Figs. 1-2B), comprising
attaching a first member to a slit beam rotation mechanism of said slit lamp (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 40, 41, 14, 100; col. 2:25-35; col. 2:55-62), wherein changes in an angle of the slit beam create corresponding rotation in said first member (Reyburn Fig. 2B; col. 2:50-63);
attaching a second member to a stationary part of the slit lamp (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 36, 41, 14, 100, 40);
measuring a relative rotation of the first member and the second member (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 40, 100; Fig. 2B - 48, 42, 14; col. 2:63-67; col. 3:1-20; col. 3:54-65);
determining an angle of the slit light using the relative rotation of the first member and the second member (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 40, 100; Fig. 2B - 48, 42, 14; col. 2:63-67; col. 3:1-20; col. 3:54-65).
As to claim 16, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Reyburn further teaches determining the angle of the slit light using the relative rotation of the first member and the second member comprises attaching a sensor to one of the first member or second member (Reyburn Fig. 1 - 40, 100; Fig. 2B - 48, 42, 14; col. 2:63-67; col. 3:1-20; col. 3:54-65).
As to claim 17, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Reyburn further teaches determining said angle of said slit light using the relative rotation of said first member and said second member comprises:
generating an output signal by said sensor corresponding to said relative rotation (Reyburn col. 3:54-65 - This sensor electronically activates and displays a digital readout of the angle of slit lamp beam's rotation on a screen (not shown) to be viewed by the clinician).; and
communicating the output signal to a controller (Reyburn col. 3:54-65 - This sensor electronically activates and displays a digital readout of the angle of slit lamp beam's rotation on a screen (not shown) to be viewed by the clinician).
As to claim 18, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and Reyburn further teaches determining said angle of said slit light using the relative rotation of said first member and said second member comprises:
generating an output signal by said sensor corresponding to said rotary change (Reyburn col. 3:54-65 - This sensor electronically activates and displays a digital readout of the angle of slit lamp beam's rotation on a screen (not shown) to be viewed by the clinician).;
transmitting said output signal to a remote device for performing said determining the angle of said slit light relevant to said angle reference point using said registered rotary position of said first member (Reyburn col. 3:54-65 - This sensor electronically activates and displays a digital readout of the angle of slit lamp beam's rotation on a screen (not shown) to be viewed by the clinician).
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.
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.
Claims 4, 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyburn as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of MacDonald (US 3,066,569).
As to claim 4, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the connecting member comprises bearings providing the first member with pivotal movement relative to the slit lamp.
In the same field of endeavor MacDonald teaches bearings providing a member with pivotal movement relative to a slit lamp (MacDonald Fig. 5 - 84; col. 3:40-51).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide bearings since, as taught by MacDonald, bearings are well known in the art for the purpose of allowing movement between to components to slide, etc. (MacDonald Fig. 5 - 84; col. 3:40-51).
As to claim 5, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, but doesn’t specify the connecting member comprises gears providing the first member with pivotal movement relative to the slit lamp.
In the same field of endeavor MacDonald teaches gears providing a member with pivotal movement relative to a slit lamp (MacDonald Fig. 5 - 89, 90, 91, 92 ,93, 94, 95; col. 3:50-56; col. 4:5-12).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide gears since, as taught by MacDonald, such gears are well known in the art for the purpose of rotating slit lamp elements (MacDonald Fig. 5 - 89, 90, 91, 92 ,93, 94, 95; col. 3:50-56; col. 4:5-12).
Claims 8, 10, 14, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyburn as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Koschmieder et al. (US 2004/0252279 - herein Koschmieder).
As to claim 8, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Reyburn teaches using an electronic inclinometer1 registering the rotation of the first member relative to the slit lamp (Reyburn col. 3:54-65), Reyburn doesn’t specify it is a magnetic rotary encoder.
In the same field of endeavor Koschmieder teaches slit lamps having magnetic rotary encoder (Koschmieder Figs. 1-3; para. [0009], [0019], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide magnetic rotary encoders since, a taught by Koschmieder, such sensors are well known in the art for the purpose of sensing and tracking the rotational position of elements in a slit lamp (Koschmieder Figs. 1-4b; para. [0019]).
As to claim 10, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Reyburn teaches using an electronic inclinometer registering the rotation of the first member relative to the slit lamp (Reyburn col. 3:54-65), Reyburn doesn’t state the sensor is an optical encoder comprising a slotted disk.
In the same field of endeavor Koschmieder teaches slit lamps having optical encoders with a slotted disk (Koschmieder Fig. 1 - 1, 4; para. [0019], [0021] - as discussed, disk (1) includes slots at (4) which can be also be optically sensed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide optical encoders since, a taught by Koschmieder, such sensors are well known in the art for the purpose of sensing and tracking the rotational position of elements in a slit lamp (Koschmieder Figs. 1-4b; para. [0019]).
As to claim 14, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Reyburn teaches using an electronic inclinometer registering the rotation of the first member relative to the slit lamp (Reyburn col. 3:54-65), Reyburn doesn’t state the sensor is a Hall-effect sensor.
In the same field of endeavor Koschmieder teaches slit lamps having Hall-effect sensor (Koschmieder Fig. 2 - 6; para. Figs. 1-3; para. [0023]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide Hall sensors since, a taught by Koschmieder, such sensors are well known in the art for the purpose of sensing and tracking the rotational position of elements in a slit lamp (Koschmieder Figs. 1-4b; para. [0019]).
As to claim 19, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and while Reyburn teaches using an electronic inclinometer registering the rotation of the first member relative to the slit lamp (Reyburn col. 3:54-65), Reyburn doesn’t specify it is a magnetic sensor or optical sensor.
In the same field of endeavor Koschmieder teaches slit lamps having magnetic sensors or optical sensor (Koschmieder Figs. 1-3; para. [0009], [0019], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide magnetic rotary encoders since, a taught by Koschmieder, such sensors are well known in the art for the purpose of sensing and tracking the rotational position of elements in a slit lamp (Koschmieder Figs. 1-4b; para. [0019]).
As to claim 20, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 15, and while Reyburn teaches using an electronic inclinometer registering the rotation of the first member relative to the slit lamp (Reyburn col. 3:54-65), Reyburn doesn’t specify it is a magnetic rotary encoder.
In the same field of endeavor Koschmieder teaches slit lamps having magnetic rotary encoder (Koschmieder Figs. 1-3; para. [0009], [0019], [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide magnetic rotary encoders since, a taught by Koschmieder, such sensors are well known in the art for the purpose of sensing and tracking the rotational position of elements in a slit lamp (Koschmieder Figs. 1-4b; para. [0019]).
Claim 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyburn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Augusto et al. (US 4,496,226 - Augusto).
As to claims 9 and 11, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Reyburn teaches using an electronic inclinometer registering the rotation of the first member relative to the slit lamp (Reyburn col. 3:54-65), Reyburn doesn’t specify the sensor is a reflective sensor.
In the same field of endeavor Augusto teaches using reflective sensors to measure movement (Augusto Fig. 1 - 551, 553; col. 14:46-67; col. 15:1-10).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a reflective sensor since, as taught by Augusto, such reflective sensors are well known in the art for the purpose of tracking/encoding positions (Augusto Fig. 1 - 551, 553; col. 14:46-67).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyburn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Levien et al. (US 2014.0009741 - Levien).
As to claim 12, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Reyburn teaches using an electronic inclinometer registering the rotation of the first member relative to the slit lamp (Reyburn col. 3:54-65), Reyburn doesn’t specify an Eddy-current killed oscillator.
In the same field of endeavor Levien teaches measuring angular positional relationship with an Eddy-current killed oscillator sensor (Levien Fig. 9 - 908; para. [0139]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide an eddy-current killed oscillator sensor since, as taught by Levien, such sensors are well known in the art as positional sensors (Levien para. [0139]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reyburn as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rieder et al. (US 5,332,895 - Rieder).
As to claim 13, Reyburn teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and while Reyburn teaches using an electronic inclinometer registering the rotation of the first member relative to the slit lamp (Reyburn col. 3:54-65), Reyburn doesn’t specify a Wiegand sensor.
In a related field of endeavor, Rieder teaches Wiegand sensors for sensing rotation (Rieder Fig. 4 - 19; col. 6:39-50). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide a Wiegand sensor since, as taught by Rieder, such sensors are well known in the art for sensing rotational positions (Rieder Figs. 4,5; col 6:39-50).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Koschmieder et al. (US 7,380,943); Yoshimura et al. (US 6,283,596); Guentert (US 2014/0078469) are cited as additional slit lamps with rotatable slit mechanisms.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 September 15, 2025
1 “Smarttooltech.” STT OEM Inclinometers, Smart Tool, 2016, smarttooltech.com/content/uploads/2015/09/AN201.pdf. (Year: 2016)