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.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 June 12, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 as they pertain to the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s amendments/remarks have resolved the USC 112 issues.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1)/(a2) as being anticipated by Copland (US 2020/0237211; of record), with evidence by Peschka et al. (US 2016/0166147 - Peschka), with evidence by Everett et al. (US 2007/0291277- Everett).
Examiner’s note: Copland incorporates by reference Peschka (Copland para. [0012], [0151]), Peschka incorporates by reference Everett (Peschka para. [0005]), where Everett is cited for the features of claim 4.
As to claim 1, Copland teaches an OCT device (Copland Figs. 2A-7; Fig. 8A - 190, 191) comprising
an OCT optical system including
a light splitter that splits light from an OCT light source into measurement light and reference light (Copland Fig. 8A - 191; para. [0007], [0119]);
a detector that detects a spectral interference signal between the measurement light guided to a subject eye and the reference light (Copland Fig. 8A - 101, 191; para. [0007], [0119]);
an arithmetic controller that acquires OCT data based on a signal from the detector (Copland Fig. 7 - 60), and controls at least the OCT optical system to execute an OCT data acquisition operation (Copland Fig. 7);
a light guide optical system moveable in three dimensions (Copland Figs. 6A-C; Fig. 8A; para. [0079]-[0081]) and including at least
an optical scanner that scans a tissue of the subject’s eye with the measurement light (Copland Figs. 3A, 8A - 195, 197; para. [0042]);
an objective optical system that is disposed between the optical scanner and the subject eye (Copland Fig. 8A - 1710, 1720; Fig. 3A - 1710, 1720), and forms a pivot point (Copland Fig. 3A - 1402; para. [0047]) around which the measurement light passing through the optical scanner is pivoted (Copland Fig. 3A - 1402; para. [0047]);
wherein the arithmetic controller guides the three-dimensional position such that the pivot point is arranged at a target position set between the subject eye and the objective optical system (Copland Fig. 3A - 101, 1402, 1710) such that the measurement light is incident on the subject eye while moving away from an optical axis of the objective optical system (Copland Fig. 3A - 102, 214; para. [0047], [0048]), and further executes the OCT data acquisition operation at the target position (Copland Fig. 3A; Fig. 5; Fig. 7).
As to claim 2, Copland teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Copland further teaches a measurement range in a depth direction in the OCT is adjustable (Copland Figs. 3A-4B; Fig. 8A - 193; para. [0119]), wherein in a case where the OCT data acquisition operation is executed at the target position, the arithmetic controller controls adjustment of the measurement range such that the measurement range includes a cornea to a fundus of the subject eye (Copland Figs. 3A-4B - 402, 409; para. [0023]-[0024]).
As to claim 3, Copland teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Copland further teaches a wavelength-swept light source that is the OCT light source (Copland para. [0007]); and
wherein the arithmetic controller is configured to sample the spectral interference signal output from the detector, and converts the spectral interference signal from an analog signal to a digital signal (Copland para. [0007], [0121]);
wherein the measurement range is adjustable in at least any one of the wavelength-swept light source or the arithmetic controller (Copland para. [0007], [0121]), and
the arithmetic controller controls a sweep frequency of the wavelength-swept light source or a sampling rate of the spectral interference signal in the converter such that the measurement range is longer than an axial length of the subject eye (Copland para. [0007], [0121]).
As to claim 4, Copland teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Copland/Everett further teaches the OCT includes an adjustment of the measurement range includes at least an optical path length difference adjuster that adjusts an optical path length difference between the measurement light and the reference light (Everett Fig. 1 - 124; para. [0048]).
As to claim 5, Copland teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Copland further teaches the device is configured to adjust a focus position of the measurement light (Copland Figs. 3A-4B; Fig. 8A - 193; para. [0119]), wherein at the target position wherein at the target position, the arithmetic controller adjusts the focus position of the measurement light to a first focus position to acquire first OCT data, further adjusts the focus position to a second focus position different from the first focus position acquires second OCT data, and acquires synthetic OCT data by synthesizing the first OCT data and the second OCT data (Copland Figs. 3A-4B; Fig. 5; Fig. 8A - 193; para. [0119]).
As to claim 6, Copland teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Copland further teaches the arithmetic controller executes the OCT data acquisition operation at the target position such that B-scan data of the OCT data includes a cornea, an iris, and a fundus of the subject eye (Copland para. [0040]).
As to claim 11, Copland teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Copland further teaches the pivot point is arranged at the target position set between the subject eye and the objective optical system such that the measurement light is incident on the subject eye while moving away from an optical axis of the objective optical system (Copland Fig. 3A - 214, 1402; para. [0047]-[0048]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Copland as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (Full ocular biometry through dual-depth whole-eye optical coherence tomography; herein Kim; of record).
As to claims 7-8, Copland teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 6, but doesn’t specify that arithmetic controller analyzes the B-scan data to acquire information representing a tilt/squint angle of the subject eye.
In the same field of endeavor Kim teaches analyzing B-scan OCT data to determine a tilt/squint angle (Kim Figs. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9; Abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to determine a tilt/squint angle (e.g. κ) since, as taught by Kim, such information is well known in the art for the purpose of gathering such information for ophthalmic surgery (Kim Abstract).
As to claim 9, Copland in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 8, and Kim further teaches the cornea and crystalline lens in the OCT data include at least a corneal luminous point and a crystalline lens luminous point (Kim Figs. 7a, b; Fig. 8), and the arithmetic controller obtains the physiological squint angle based at least on a positional relationship between the corneal luminous point, the crystalline lens luminous point, and a fovea centralis on the fundus in the B-scan data (Kim Fig. 8, 9; Section 3.4).
As to claim 10, Copland in view of Kim teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 7, and Kim teaches the arithmetic controller analyzes the B-scan data to acquire the information representing the tilt of the anterior segment with respect to the fundus, based on a positional relationship between a pupil center based on an end portion of the iris and a fovea centralis on the fundus (Kim Figs. 1, 3, 4, 8, 9; Abstract).
Conclusion
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 July 8, 2026
Prosecution Insights