DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE 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 .
Comments
The drawings of November 17, 2023 are hereby accepted as FORMAL.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) of November 17, 2023 has been considered during examination.
Please note that any mention of a line number of a claim in this office action refers to the claims as they appear in the official claim listing in the image file wrapper (IFW), not to any claim as it may be reproduced below.
Claim Interpretation
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 1-16 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.
Overall, independent claim 1 is indefinite and unclear in that it refers to “a user’s eye” on line 3 of the claim, raising the questions of who the “user” is and of what the “user” is using. Is the “user” himself using a device to image his own eye? Substantially the same remarks apply to independent claim 11, noting the claim language, “a user’s eye” on line 6 of the claim.
In each of claims 1, 3, 11, 13, and 16, the uses of the word, “amount” in connection with “signals” is indefinite and unclear in context as to the meaning of “amount” in connection with “signals.” For example, does “amount” in this context mean the quantity of signals, the intensity of the signals, the amplitude of the signals, the power of the signals, or something else?
On lines 2-3 of dependent claim 3, “the amount of each signals [sic]” lacks antecedent basis and is unclear in context. Perhaps, “the amount of each signal” was meant.
On line 8 of dependent claim 3, “the amount of each signals [sic]” lacks antecedent basis and is unclear in context. Perhaps, “the amount of each signal” was meant.
The term “high” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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.
On line 2 of dependent claim 5, the term, “high frequency radio waves” is indefinite and unclear in context in that “high” is a relative term, raising the question of what range of frequencies are “high.” If Applicant intends the term to refer to the standard of “high frequency” meaning from 3 MHz to 30 MHz, then the claim must be amended to make that clear.
The usages of “sub image” independent claim 6 are unclear as to whether the word, “subimage” is meant. A prefix cannot stand alone.
On line 3 of dependent claim 7, the phrase, “corresponding the eye” is unclear in that it does not make sense in context.
On line 10 of independent claim 11, “the received amount of signals” lacks antecedent basis.
On line 3 of dependent claim 13, “the amount of each of the signals” lacks antecedent basis.
On line 6 of dependent claim 13, “the amount of each of signals” lacks antecedent basis.
On line 6 of dependent claim 13, “the amount of each of signals” is unclear in context in that it does make logical sense.
In dependent claim 13, it is unclear if “the amount of each of the signals: (line 3) and “the amount of each of signals” (line 6) are meant be the same text.
The term “high” in claim 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high” 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.
On line 2 of dependent claim 15, the term, “high frequency radio waves” is indefinite and unclear in context in that “high” is a relative term, raising the question of what range of frequencies are “high.” If Applicant intends the term to refer to the standard of “high frequency” meaning from 3 MHz to 30 MHz, then the claim must be amended to make that clear.
On line 3 of dependent claim 16, “the amount of the signals” lacks antecedent basis.
On each of lines 2, 4, and 6 of independent claim 1, the three uses of “one or more portions” make the claim indefinite and unclear as to whether each of these uses point to the same thing or to different things. Substantially the same remarks apply to the mentions of “one or more portions throughout claims 1-16.
On line 8 of claim 1 and on line 11 of independent claim 11, “the portions” lacks clear antecedent basis in that the earlier uses of “one or more portions” is potentially singular.
On line 3 of dependent claim 2, “the one or more portions” lacks clear antecedent basis due to the use of “one or more portions three times in claim 1 and earlier in claim 2.
On line 5 of dependent claim 3, “the one or more portions” lacks clear antecedent basis.
On line 3 of dependent claim 6, “the one or more portions” lacks clear antecedent basis.
On line 1 of dependent claim 9, “the one or more portions” lacks clear antecedent basis.
On each of lines 3 and 5 of dependent claim 12, “the one or more portions” lacks clear antecedent basis.
On line 4 of dependent claim 14, “the one or more portions” lacks clear antecedent basis.
On line 3 of dependent claim 16. “the one or more portions” lacks clear antecedent basis.
On lines 8-9 of independent claim 1, the claim language, “obtaining an image corresponding to the eye having the portions with the obtained sizes” is indefinite and unclear in context as to whether this refers to an image obtained by the eye itself or to any image obtained by something else. Substantially the same remarks apply to the corresponding phrase on lines 11-12 (i.e., the last two lines) of independent claim 11.
Each of dependent claims 2-10 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 1.
Each of dependent claims 12-16 is unclear, at least, in that it depends from unclear, independent claim 11.
Prior Art Rejections
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 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scally et al (US 10,908,279 B2), hereinafter Scally et al (‘279).
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, Scally et al (‘279) plainly discloses “An image capturing method in an electronic device” (line 1), noting, for example, column 1, lines 50-58; column 2, lines 55-64; and, Figures 1 and 2.
The claim 1 first method step of “outputting a radar signal on one or more portions of a user’s eye” (line 3) is met in Scally et al (‘279) by the transmitting of a radar signal by the radar toward the eye.
The claim 1 second method step of “receiving an amount of signals reflected by one or more portions corresponding to the eye” (lines 4-5) is met in Scally et al (‘279) by the receiving of radar echo signals by the radar, where these echo signals have been reflected from parts of the eye, noting, for example, Figure 3.
The claim 1 third method step of “obtaining a size of one or more portions corresponding to the eye based on the received amount of signals” (lines 6-7) is met in Scally et al (‘279) by the mapping of the internal portions of the eye by the disclosed radar, noting, for example, column 4, lines 10-27 (measuring dimensions within the eye to find “dimensional errors,” with the dimensions corresponding to “size” of the parts of the eye); and, column 20, lines 22-28 (thickness would be an indication of “size”). This disclosed mapping and measuring of the parts of the eye would be based on the “amount of signals,” at least, in that parts of the eye of larger “size” would have a larger radar cross-section.
The claim 1 fourth method step of “obtaining an image corresponding to the eye having the portions with the obtained sizes” (lines 8-9) is met in Scally et al (‘279) by the obtaining of an image of the eye that is displayed, for example, on “electronic display 115).
In that each and every feature recited in independent claim 1 is plainly disclosed in Scally et al (‘279), independent claim 1 is anticipated by Scally et al (‘279).
The remarks with respect to independent claim 11 are substantially the same as those above with respect to independent claim 1, in that claim 11 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 1. In Scally et al (‘279), please, also, note column 19, lines 29-30; and, column 19, lines 36-57.
In that each and every feature recited in independent claim 11 is plainly disclosed in Scally et al (‘279), independent claim 11 is anticipated by Scally et al (‘279).
The further limitations of dependent claim 2 are met by the use of a radar in Scally et al (‘279) of the disclosed radar to transmit radar signals and to receive echoes on the various parts of the eye, including those parts of the eye that include layers: the fibrous tunic; the vascular tunic; and, the nervous tunic. The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 12 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2, in that claim 12 is the apparatus claim corresponding to the method of claim 2.
The further limitations of dependent claim 9 are met by Scally et al (‘279) in that the one or more portions disclosed are ocular portions, noting, for example, Figure 3.
The further limitations of dependent claim 10 are met by Scally et al (‘279) in that certain ocular portions of the eye have layers, namely, : the fibrous tunic; the vascular tunic; and, the nervous tunic.
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.
Claims 5, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Scally et al (‘279).
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.
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of radar systems.
Looking to the further limitations of dependent claim 5, Scally et al (‘279) discloses the use of “X band frequency (8.0 to 12.0 GHz) or any other suitable band for radar” (column 9, lines 26-29). Due to this teaching of “any other suitable band for radar,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try “high frequency radio waves and ultrawide band (UWB) waves” from among the large number of possible radar frequencies, with a reasonable likelihood of success. Substantially the same remarks apply to dependent claim 15.
As for dependent claim 16, the further limitations are met in Scally et al (‘279) by the mapping of the internal portions of the eye by the disclosed radar, noting, for example, column 4, lines 10-27 (measuring dimensions within the eye to find “dimensional errors,” with the dimensions corresponding to “size” of the parts of the eye); and, column 20, lines 22-28 (thickness would be an indication of “size”). This disclosed mapping and measuring of the parts of the eye would be based on the “amount of signals,” at least, in that parts of the eye of larger “size” would have a larger radar cross-section. In that the disclosed mapping and measuring of the parts of the eye are indirect, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the mapping and measuring of the parts of the eye could be done by estimating based on the received signal.
Potentially-Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6-8, 13, and 14 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Each of Hanna (‘075) and Hanna (‘849) is of general interest for the disclosed use of iris images for biometric recognition.
Saylor et al (‘351) is of general interest for the disclosed details of biometric imaging.
Verdooner et al (‘360) is of general interest for the disclosure related to comparison of retinal patterns.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648