DETAILED ACTION
Oath/Declaration
1. Oath and declaration filed on 10/18/2023 is accepted.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The prior art documents submitted by application in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 10/24/2024 and 7/5/2024 have all been considered and made of record ( note the attached copy of form PTO – 1449). (The information disclosure statement filed in this case fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.56 (b) which states that information is material to patentability which is NOT CUMULATIVE to information already of record or being made of record in the application. Applicant has cited over 150 references for consideration. The examiner believes that the significant number of references for consideration is largely cumulative and, therefore, based upon the large number of references cited, the initialed references have been considered in a cumulative manner).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claim(s) 1,2 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nekrassov et al (2022/0225874 A1) in view of Camino et al (2020/0273218 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nekrassov et al discloses (refer to figures 1-3) an ophthalmic system (10) for guiding ophthalmic surgery comprising: an aberrometer (32); one or more processing devices (a computer 20 includes logic 22,memory 24 and an interface 26) (paragraph 0024) ; one or more memory devices coupled to the one or more processing devices and storing executable code that, when executed by the one or more processing devices , causes the one or more processing devices to: receive one or more wavefront elevation maps (34) (topographer) (paragraph 0025)for a patient's eye from the aberrometer.
Nekrassov et al discloses all of the claimed limitations not explicitly discloses one or more wavefront elevation maps corresponding to vitreous floaters.
Camino et al discloses one or more wavefront elevation maps corresponding to vitreous floaters (paragraph 0017, figure 10) (corresponding en face maps paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching one or more wavefront elevation maps corresponding to vitreous floaters in to the Nekrassov et al an ophthalmic system for the purpose of methods and system for automated detected of shadow artifacts in an optical coherence tomography (OCT) and or angiography as taught by Camino et al (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 2, combination of Nekrassov et al in view of Camino et al discloses wherein the one or more attributes include localized spatial variation of the one or more wavefront elevation maps (34) (topographer (paragraph 0024).
Regarding claim 9, Nekrassov et al discloses (refer to figures 1-3) wherein the executable code that, when executed by the one or more processing devices , further causes the one or more processing devices (a computer 20 includes logic 22,memory 24 and an interface 26) (paragraph 0024) to identify the one or more attributes of the one or more wavefront elevation maps (34) corresponding to the vitreous floaters by processing the one or more wavefront elevation maps with a machine learning model.
Regarding claim 10, Nekrassov et al discloses (refer to figures 1-3) a method (10) for characterizing vitreous floaters comprising: measuring, by an aberrometer (32), a patient's eye to obtain one or more wavefront elevation maps (34); receiving, by a computing device, the one or more wavefront elevation maps (34) (topographer) (paragraph 0025) ; and identifying, by the computing device, one or more attributes of the one or more wavefront elevation maps corresponding to vitreous floaters.
Nekrassov et al discloses all of the claimed limitations not explicitly discloses one or more wavefront elevation maps corresponding to vitreous floaters.
Camino et al discloses one or more wavefront elevation maps corresponding to vitreous floaters (paragraph 0017, figure 10) (corresponding en face maps paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching one or more wavefront elevation maps corresponding to vitreous floaters in to the Nekrassov et al an ophthalmic system for the purpose of methods and system for automated detected of shadow artifacts in an optical coherence tomography (OCT) and or angiography as taught by Camino et al (paragraph 0032).
Regarding claim 11, combination of Nekrassov et al in view of Camino et al discloses wherein the one or more attributes include localized spatial variation of the one or more wavefront elevation maps (34).
Claim(s) 5,14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nekrassov et al (2022/0225874 A1) in view of Pinto (2019/0076242 A1).
Regarding claim 5, depends on claim 1, Nekrassov et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except wherein the aberrometer is an Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) system.
Pinto discloses wherein the aberrometer is an Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) system (paragraph 0169).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching wherein the aberrometer is an Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) system in to the Nekrassov et al an ophthalmic system for improve range of vision as taught by Nekrassov et al (paragraph 0169).
Regarding claim 14, depends on claim 10, Nekrassov et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except wherein the aberrometer is an Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) system.
Pinto discloses wherein the aberrometer is an Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) system (paragraph 0169).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching wherein the aberrometer is an Optiwave Refractive Analysis (ORA) system in to the Nekrassov et al an ophthalmic system for improve range of vision as taught by Nekrassov et al (paragraph 0169).
Claim(s) 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nekrassov et al (2022/0225874 A1) in view of Tsukada (2023/030151 A1).
Regarding claim 18, depends on claim 10, combination of Nekrassov et al in view of Tsukada discloses all of the claim limitations except processing the one or more wavefront elevation maps with a machine learning model.
However, processing the one or more wavefront elevation maps with a machine learning model (paragraph 0099).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching processing the one or more wavefront elevation maps with a machine learning model in to the Nekrassov et al an ophthalmic device for the purpose of processor determine whether or not an input image satisfies the image group assessment condition as taught by Tsukada et al (paragraph 0125).
Claim(s) 6-8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nekrassov et al (2022/0225874 A1) in view of Larson et al (2019/0127034 A1).
Regarding claim 6, depends on claim 1, Nekrassov et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except further comprising: a light distancing and ranging (LIDAR) system.
However, Larson et al discloses a light distancing and ranging (LIDAR) system (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching a light distancing and ranging (LIDAR) system in to the Nekrassov an ophthalmic system serve as sensing device as taught by Larson et al (paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 7, depends on claim 6, combination of Nekrassov et al in view of Larson et al discloses wherein the one or more attributes include whether the depth information indicates scattering within a vitreous of the patient's eye (paragraph 0037, Larson et al).
Regarding claim 8, depends on claim 6, combination of Nekrassov et al in view of Larson et al discloses wherein the aberrometer (32 and the LIDAR system have a common laser light source and a common scanning mirror (paragraph 0026).
Regarding claim 15, depends on claim 10, Nekrassov et al discloses all of the claimed limitations except further comprising: a light distancing and ranging (LIDAR) system.
However, Larson et al discloses a light distancing and ranging (LIDAR) system (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to provide teaching a light distancing and ranging (LIDAR) system in to the Nekrassov an ophthalmic system serve as sensing device as taught by Larson et al (paragraph 0007).
Regarding claim 16, depends on claim 10, combination of Nekrassov et al in view of Larson et al discloses wherein the one or more attributes include whether the depth information indicates scattering within a vitreous of the patient's eye (paragraph 0037, Larson et al).
Regarding claim 17 depends on claim 15, combination of Nekrassov et al in view of Larson et al discloses wherein the aberrometer (32 and the LIDAR system have a common laser light source and a common scanning mirror (paragraph 0026).
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 3, 4 ,12,13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
5. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: wherein the one or more wavefront elevation maps comprise a plurality of wavefront elevation maps captured at different times and the one or more attributes include temporal variation among the plurality of wavefront elevation maps and wherein the one or more wavefront elevation maps comprise a plurality of wavefront elevation maps captured at different times and the one or more attributes include temporal variation among the plurality of wavefront elevation maps and localized spatial variation of the plurality of wavefront elevation maps.
Conclusion
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMED A HASAN whose telephone number is (571)272-2331. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6 AM -4 PM.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at 571-272-2713. 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.
/MOHAMMED A HASAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 12/17/2025