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
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 9/22/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant’s disclosure recites disc 205 within Fig 2, disc 305 within Fig 3, and disc 405 within Fig 4 but they are not disclosed within the Specification.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-12 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. In at least claims 1-6 and 9-12 the word “substantially” renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear how the applicant is measuring: substantially since these are terms of degree/ subjective terms. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degrees, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). See In re Wiggins, 488 F. 2d 538, 541, 179 USPQ 421, 423 (CCPA 1973).
Dependent claims 2-5 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Dependent claims 7-8 are rejected as dependent upon claim 6.
Dependent claims 10-11 are rejected as dependent upon claim 9.
With respect to Claim 1-12, the terms “predetermined diameter” and “predetermined pitch” in Claim 1, “predetermined diameter” and “predetermined pitch” in Claim 6, “predetermined diameter” and “predetermined uniform pitch” in Claim 9 and “predetermined diameter”, “predetermined uniform pitch” and “predetermined pitch” in Claim 12 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms “predetermined diameter,” “predetermined distance,” and “predetermined uniform pitch” are 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. Thus, the disc, intensity of the light source, color of the reference light, and obstruction observed by a user in the claims have been rendered indefinite by the use of these terms.
Dependent claims 2-5 are rejected as dependent upon claim 1.
Dependent claims 7-8 are rejected as dependent upon claim 6.
Dependent claims 10-11 are rejected as dependent upon claim 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 are allowed, pending applicant’s overcoming of the 112(b) rejections above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to independent claim 1, the prior art of Steinmueller taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a planar toroidal light source including the specific arrangement: “a planar toroidal colorless translucent disc having a concentric circular hole of a diameter; a planar spiral coil of side emitting optical fiber, the coil having a pitch, the coil being attached to a first surface of the disc such that the coil and the disc are concentric; and wherein a first end of the coil is supplied with visible light from a light from a point source of light for creating a toroidal disc of uniform brightness at the second surface of the disc”. Claims 2-5 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 1.
Specifically, with respect to independent claim 6, the prior art of Steinmueller taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a light source including the specific arrangement: “a planar toroidal translucent colorless disc having a concentric circular hole of a diameter; a planar spiral coil of side emitting optical fiber, the coil having a pitch, the coil being attached to a first surface of the disc such that the coil and the disc are concentric; wherein a first end of the coil is supplied with visible light from a point source of light for creating a toroidal disc of uniform brightness at the second surface of the disc; and the light from the second surface of the disc being obstructed by an opaque circle, for forming a circular image on a cornea of the eye of the human subject illuminated by the light source”. Claims 7-8 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 6.
Specifically, with respect to independent claim 9, the prior art of Steinmueller taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a light source including the specific arrangement: “a planar toroidal translucent colorless disc having a concentric circular hole of a diameter; a planar spiral coil of side emitting optical fiber, the coil having a uniform pitch, the coil being attached to a first surface of the disc such that the coil and the disc are concentric; wherein a first end of the coil is supplied with visible light from a point source of light for creating a toroidal disc of uniform brightness at the second surface of the disc; and the light from the second surface of the disc being obstructed by an opaque cover with a plurality of circular concentric transparent slits for casting the image of the slits on a cornea of the eye of the human subject illuminated by the light source”. Claims 10-11 are allowable due to pendency on independent claim 9.
Specifically, with respect to independent claim 12, the prior art of Steinmueller taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such a planar toroidal light source including the specific arrangement: “a planar toroidal translucent colorless disc having a concentric circular hole of a diameter; a planar spiral coil of side emitting optical fiber, the coil having a uniform pitch, the coil being attached to a first surface of the disc such that the coil and the disc are concentric; and wherein the disc and the spiral coil are illuminated from a first side proximal to the coil, with a point source of light positioned coaxially at a distance from the coil for the coil acting as a coiled cylindrical lens forming a planar spiral coil pattern brighter than a remaining part of the disc on a second side of the disc”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wall (20130128225), Steinmueller (20130050648), Carbonari (20100079726) are examples of ophthalmological analysis instrument used for measuring a topography of a surface of an eye.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872