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
Acknowledgement is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO-1449) filed 1/18/2024. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisheh et al. (2023/0146429), hereinafter Pisheh in view of Richman et al. (11,294,459), hereinafter Richman.
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Pisheh discloses, in figures 1, 2, 7a, and 7b, a system for monitoring an ophthalmic condition (100, ophthalmic system) (paragraph 0023), comprising: a headset (tonometer)configured to be worn by a user, the headset including a display and an ophthalmic testing unit comprising one or more sensors to obtain sensor information indicating a physiological measurement of an eye (IOP measurements) of the user (paragraph 0023; tonometer is a headset that is used to measures the pressure inside the eye); and a device including a processor configured by instructions stored in memory to: receive surgical information, from a data structure, corresponding to a first time in which a physiological measurement of the eye is obtained (paragraph 0023 discloses a memory configured to store a plurality of IOP measurements at various points in time); receive sensor information, from the headset, corresponding to a second time in which a physiological measurement is obtained (paragraph 0023 discloses patients eyes are tested).
Pisheh does not specifically disclose generate an ophthalmic score based on a comparison between the surgical information and the sensor information.
Richman discloses generate an ophthalmic score based on a comparison between the surgical information and the sensor information (col. 15, lines 23-26 and col. 17, lines 10-20).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Pisheh with the ophthalmic score of Richman for the purpose of verifying or confirming the user is a registered user.
Regarding claim 5, Pisheh discloses wherein the device is a mobile device in communication with the headset (paragraph 0023 discloses a personal mobile device).
Regarding claim 7, Pisheh discloses wherein the second time occurs after the first time with the ophthalmic score representing a post-surgical evaluation (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Pisheh discloses wherein the processor is further configured by instructions stored in memory to: receive updated sensor information from the headset; and update the ophthalmic score based on the updated sensor information (paragraphs 0023 and 0024).
Regarding claim 9, Pisheh discloses wherein the processor is further configured by instructions stored in memory to: invoke a machine learning model to determine, based on the sensor information, recovery of the eye (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Pisheh discloses wherein the processor is further configured by instructions stored in memory to: invoke a machine learning model to determine, based on the sensor information, a symptom of the ophthalmic condition (paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 11, Pisheh discloses wherein the physiological measurement comprises a measure of at least one of visual acuity, drooping eye lids, blink pattern, blood vessels, inflammatory cells, intraocular pressure (IOP), muscle movement, corneal curvature, or pupil response (paragraph 0023 discloses intraocular pressure IOP).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Pisheh discloses wherein the headset exercises the eye before obtaining the sensor information (paragraph 0023).
Regarding claim 13, Pisheh discloses wherein the ophthalmic testing unit includes a pupil detector (106, proximity sensor on the 210, pupil) (paragraph 0035), a beam splitter (figure 3), and an illuminator (144 and 154, light source) (paragraph 0032).
Claim(s) 2-4, 16, and 19is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisheh et al. (2023/0146429), hereinafter Pisheh in view of Richman et al. (11,294,459), hereinafter Richman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McGillin (2006/0287906).
Regarding claim 2, Pisheh discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Pisheh does not disclose wherein the processor is further configured by instructions stored in memory to: trigger an alert based on the ophthalmic score exceeding a range.
McGillin discloses wherein the processor is further configured by instructions stored in memory to: trigger an alert based on the ophthalmic score exceeding a range (paragraph 0031).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Pisheh with the triggering an alert of McGillin for the purpose of distinguishing between various treatments and medication management.
Regarding claims 3 and 19, McGillin discloses wherein the processor is further configured by instructions stored in memory to: trigger an alert based on the ophthalmic score, the alert includes outputting a message to at least one of the device or the headset (paragraphs 0031 and 0039).
Regarding claim 4, McGillin discloses wherein the processor is further configured by instructions stored in memory to: generate a recommendation based on the ophthalmic score (paragraphs 0031 and 0036).
Regarding claim 16, McGillin discloses further comprising: triggering a first alert based on the ophthalmic score falling below a lower threshold and a second alert based on the ophthalmic score exceeding an upper threshold (paragraphs 0031 and 0039).
Claim(s) 6 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pisheh et al. (2023/0146429), hereinafter Pisheh in view of Richman et al. (11,294,459), hereinafter Richman as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Holz (2018/0246568), hereinafter Holz.
Regarding claim 6, Pisheh discloses all the limitations in common with claim 1, and such is hereby incorporated.
Pisheh does not disclose wherein the headset is at least one of a virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), or mixed reality (MR) headset.
Holz discloses wherein the headset is at least one of a virtual reality (VR), augmented reality (AR), or mixed reality (MR) headset (paragraph 0019).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Pisheh with the headset of Holz for the purpose of immersing patients in a virtual reality environment.
Regarding claim 14, Holz discloses wherein the ophthalmic testing unit measures blink frequencies, intervals between blinks, and length of blinks (paragraph 0017 discloses intervals between blinks).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDI N THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 3:30.
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/BRANDI N THOMAS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights