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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 06/30/2026 (“Amendment”). Claims 13, 19, 20, 23, 28, 31, and 32 are currently under consideration. The Office acknowledges the amendments to claims 13, 23, and 28. Claims 14, 18, and 24 remain withdrawn.
The objection(s) to the drawings, specification, and/or claims, the interpretation(s) under 35 USC 112(f), and/or the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 and/or 35 USC 112 not reproduced below has/have been withdrawn in view of the corresponding amendments.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 13, 19, 20, 23, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 13 and 23, there is no support for a “controller” comprising a “processor” and a “calculator.” A control unit, as in Fig. 2, is not necessarily a controller, a processing part is not necessarily a processor, and a calculation part is not necessarily a calculator.
Claims 19, 20, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected because they depend on rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 13, 19, 20, 23, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 13, 19, 20, and 31 are directed to a “device,” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine. Claims 23, 28, and 32 are directed to a “method,” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One: Claims 13 and 23 recite (“set forth” or “describe”) the abstract ideas of a mental process and a mathematical concept, substantially as follows:
analyzing the surface wave, determining physical properties of the eyeball based on the analyzing, determining at least one of phase change and delay time of the surface wave, determining at least one of phase velocity and group velocity of the surface wave based on at least one of the phase change and delay time of the surface wave and calculating eyeball physical properties based on at least one of the phase velocity and group velocity of the surface wave.
The analyzing, determining, and calculating steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper, but for performance on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to see a printout of the detected surface wave, they would be able to observe its morphology or other features and perform analysis, determinations, and calculations based thereon. There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the surface wave data so as to prohibit mental processing. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the analyzing and calculating mentally or with pen and paper.
The analyzing, determining, and calculating steps also involve the mathematical concepts of feature extraction and calculation based thereon. These steps correspond to “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem [that] can serve the same purpose as a formula.” See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Prong Two: Claims 13 and 23 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process or mathematical concept into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are “directed to” the mental process and mathematical concept. The additional elements merely:
recite the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely use the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (e.g. a controller comprising a surface wave processor and an ocular physical property calculator, computer-implemented, etc.), and
add insignificant extra-solution activity (the pre-solution activity of: using an excitation part and a detection part to obtain a surface wave, with a particular frequency range specified for the excitation part).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on a computer. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. Nothing is done with the calculated physical property. No improvement to the technology is evident. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 13 and 23 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely
further describe the pre-solution activity (or the structure used for such activity) (e.g. types of detection means (claims 19 and 28), arrangement with respect to a center of corneal curvature (claim 20), etc.), and
further describe the abstract idea (e.g. wherein the calculated property is intraocular pressure (claims 31 and 32), etc.).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves another technology or technical field, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 13, 19, 23, 28, 31, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2018/0193194 (“Haeggstrom”) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2020/0315570 (“Ambrozinski”), US Patent Application Publication 2014/0350397 (“Lewis”), and US Patent Application Publication 2017/0280998 (“Ariga”).
Regarding claim 13, Haeggstrom teaches [a] non-contact type ocular physical property measuring device (¶ 0024), comprising: an excitation part comprising an exciter and a drive circuit configured to drive the exciter, the exciter exciting one or more excitation points on an eyeball using an irradiation wave to generate a surface wave on a surface of an eye to be examined (¶ 0010, producing an excitation pressure pulse (using a solenoid-driven impacting device - ¶¶s 0012, 0031, 0032, etc.) formed by nonlinear waves to generate a surface wave), …; a detection part comprising a detector and a transmitting circuit configured to drive the detector, the detector detecting the surface wave generated by the exciter at at least one or more detection points (¶ 0010, detecting the surface wave - also see ¶¶s 0035, 0036, 0062, etc., describing the structure), which are different from the excitation points (¶ 0028, wave dispersion, ¶ 0071, etc.), on the eyeball; and a controller comprising a surface wave processor and an ocular physical property calculator (¶¶s 0032, 0059, 0072, etc., describing calculation by a computer processor, control by a microcontroller, etc.), the surface wave processor analyzing the surface wave detected by the detection part (¶ 0027, advanced methods to process measurement information), and the ocular physical property calculator determining physical properties of the eyeball based on the analyzing by the surface wave processor (Abstract, ¶ 0024, etc., extracting pressure information to measure intraocular pressure), wherein: the surface wave processor determines at least one of a phase change or a delay time of the surface wave (¶ 0050, calculating surface-wave velocity based on a difference in arrival times); and the ocular physical property calculator determines at least one of a phase velocity or a group velocity of the surface wave based on at least one of the phase change or the delay time of the surface wave and calculates eyeball physical properties base on at least one of the phase velocity or the group velocity of the surface wave (¶¶s 0050, 0054, etc., calculating surface-wave velocity, which is either phase velocity or group velocity, and calculating eyeball physical properties (such as corneal thickness) based thereon).
Haeggstrom does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the irradiation wave emitted from the exciter is a continuous wave of an aerial ultrasonic wave whose basic frequency ranges from 20 KHz to 200 KHz or a burst wave having more than 10 waves of the aerial ultrasonic wave (although ¶ 0030 does describe using an ultrasonic measurement technique, and ¶ 0010 mentions an excitation pressure pulse).
Ambrozinski teaches using an irradiation wave that is e.g. a burst aerial ultrasonic wave whose basic frequency is greater than or equal to 20 kHz (¶¶s 0009, 0017, 0049, 0051, 0052, etc. – also see ¶ 0056, a burst signal, ¶¶s 0044, 0045, etc., describe an ultrasound pulse, etc.). Ambrozinski also teaches measurement of surface wave velocity based on phase change or delay time (¶¶s 0076, 0084, etc.).
Lewis teaches emitting a burst ultrasound wave having tens of cycles, e.g. 50 cycles (¶ 0195, Fig. 31), and an alternative that uses a continuous ultrasound wave (Fig. 32 and related description).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ultrasonic frequency such as e.g. 20 kHz in Haeggstrom as in Ambrozinski, since 20 kHz is an ultrasonic frequency as already contemplated by Haeggstrom, and is known to be desirable for use in non-contact measurements of IOP, including measurements based on surface waves (Ambrozinski: Abstract, ¶ 0080, etc., thus achieving a predictable result). It would have been obvious to use a continuous wave or a burst wave having more than 10 cycles, as in Lewis, since these are known alternatives (Lewis: Figs. 31 and 32 and related descriptions), and for the purpose of increasing resolution (Lewis: ¶ 0198).
Haeggstrom-Ambrozinski-Lewis does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the irradiation wave emitted from the exciter is amplitude modulated (although e.g. Ambrozinski does describe use of a carrier wave for air-coupled ultrasound (¶ 0049)).
Ariga teaches using amplitude modulation in a non contact eyeball vibration type tonometer (¶¶s 0031, 0035, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use amplitude modulation for the excitation of the combination, as in Ariga, for the purpose of obtaining sharp directivity (Ariga: ¶ 0031) and for generating the required sound pressure without discomfort to the user (Ariga: ¶ 0035).
Regarding claim 23, Haeggstrom teaches [a] computer-implemented non-contact type ocular physical property measuring method (¶ 0024), comprising: exciting, via an exciter and a drive circuit configured to drive the exciter, at least one or more excitation points on an eyeball using an irradiation wave to generate a surface wave on a surface of an eye to be examined (¶ 0010, producing an excitation pressure pulse (using a solenoid-driven impacting device - ¶¶s 0012, 0031, 0032, etc.) formed by nonlinear waves to generate a surface wave), …; detecting, via a detector and a transmitting circuit configured to drive the detector, the surface wave generated by the excitation step at at least one or more detection points (¶ 0010, detecting the surface wave - also see ¶¶s 0035, 0036, 0062, etc., describing the structure), which are different from the excitation points (¶ 0028, wave dispersion, ¶ 0071, etc.), on the eyeball; analyzing, via a controller comprising a surface wave processor and an ocular physical property calculator (¶¶s 0032, 0059, 0072, etc., describing calculation by a computer processor, control by a microcontroller, etc.), the surface wave as detected (¶ 0027, advanced methods to process measurement information); determining, via the ocular physical property calculator, physical properties of the eyeball based on the surface wave as analyzed (Abstract, ¶ 0024, etc., extracting pressure information to measure intraocular pressure); determining, via the surface wave processor, at least one of a phase change or a delay time of the surface wave (¶ 0050, calculating surface-wave velocity based on a difference in arrival times); and determining, via the ocular physical property calculator, at least one of a phase velocity or a group velocity of the surface wave based on at least one of the phase change or the delay time of the surface wave and calculating eyeball physical properties based on at least one of the phase velocity or the group velocity of the surface wave (¶¶s 0050, 0054, etc., calculating surface-wave velocity, which is either phase velocity or group velocity, and calculating eyeball physical properties (such as corneal thickness) based thereon).
Haeggstrom does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the irradiation wave is emitted during the exciting of the one or more excitation points on the eyeball as a continuous wave of an aerial ultrasonic wave whose basic frequency ranges from 20 KHz to 200 KHz or a burst wave having more than 10 waves of this aerial ultrasonic wave (although ¶ 0030 does describe using an ultrasonic measurement technique, and ¶ 0010 mentions an excitation pressure pulse).
Ambrozinski teaches using an irradiation wave that is a continuous aerial ultrasonic wave whose basic frequency is greater than or equal to 20 kHz (¶¶s 0009, 0017, 0049, 0051, 0052, etc.). Ambrozinski also teaches measurement of surface wave velocity based on phase change or delay time (¶¶s 0076, 0084, etc.).
Lewis teaches emitting a burst ultrasound wave having tens of cycles, e.g. 50 cycles (¶ 0195, Fig. 31), and an alternative that uses a continuous ultrasound wave (Fig. 32 and related description).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an ultrasonic frequency such as e.g. 20 kHz in Haeggstrom as in Ambrozinski, since 20 kHz is an ultrasonic frequency as already contemplated by Haeggstrom, and is known to be desirable for use in non-contact measurements of IOP, including measurements based on surface waves (Ambrozinski: Abstract, ¶ 0080, etc., thus achieving a predictable result). It would have been obvious to use a continuous wave or a burst wave having more than 10 cycles, as in Lewis, since these are known alternatives (Lewis: Figs. 31 and 32 and related descriptions), and for the purpose of increasing resolution (Lewis: ¶ 0198).
Haeggstrom-Ambrozinski-Lewis does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the irradiation wave emitted from the exciter is amplitude modulated (although e.g. Ambrozinski does describe use of a carrier wave for air-coupled ultrasound (¶ 0049)).
Ariga teaches using amplitude modulation in a non contact eyeball vibration type tonometer (¶¶s 0031, 0035, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use amplitude modulation for the excitation of the combination, as in Ariga, for the purpose of obtaining sharp directivity (Ariga: ¶ 0031) and for generating the required sound pressure without discomfort to the user (Ariga: ¶ 0035).
Regarding claims 19 and 28, Haeggstrom-Ambrozinski-Lewis-Ariga teaches all the features with respect to the corresponding claims 13 and 23, as outlined above. Regarding claim 19, Haeggstrom-Ambrozinski-Lewis-Ariga further teaches wherein the detection part detects the surface wave using one of an ultrasonic reflection method, an optical triangulation method, a confocal method of optical coaxial light beams having multiple wavelengths, a Fourier domain optical interferometer using an optical heterodyne method, or a vibration detection by a laser Doppler interferometer (Haeggstrom: Abstract, acoustic reflectivity, ¶ 0030, ultrasonic; ¶¶s 0035 and 0062, optical means; Ambrozinski: Abstract, reflected ultrasound).
Claim 28 is rejected in like manner.
Regarding claims 31 and 32, Haeggstrom-Ambrozinski-Lewis-Ariga teaches all the features with respect to the corresponding claims 13 and 23, as outlined above. Regarding claim 31, Haeggstrom-Ambrozinski-Lewis-Ariga further teaches wherein the eyeball physical properties calculated by the ocular physical property calculator comprises intraocular pressure of the eyeball (Haeggstrom: Abstract; Ambrozinski: ¶ 0015; Ariga: Abstract).
Claim 32 is rejected in like manner.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haeggstrom-Ambrozinski-Lewis-Ariga in view of US Patent Application Publication 2013/0144171 (“Watson”).
Regarding claim 20, Haeggstrom-Ambrozinski-Lewis-Ariga teaches all the features with respect to claim 13, as outlined above. Haeggstrom-Ambrozinski-Lewis-Ariga does not appear to explicitly teach wherein the excitation part and the detection part are arranged such that an intersection of an irradiation axis of the excitation part and a detection axis of the detection part coincides with a center of corneal curvature (although see Haeggstrom: Figs. 7, 9, 10, etc.).
Watson teaches aligning an ultrasonic scanner with the center of curvature of the corneal or lens surface (¶¶s 0061, 0069, 0179, 0224, etc., Fig. 5A, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to irradiate with respect to the center of corneal curvature in the combination as in Watson for the purpose of being able to image the surface of interest (Watson: ¶¶s 0061, 0179, 0224, etc.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 06/30/2026 have been fully considered. The amendments with respect to the first rejections under 35 USC 112(a) are persuasive, and the rejections are accordingly withdrawn. However, the second rejections under 35 USC 112(a) are maintained. The Office notes that e.g. disclosure of a “control unit” does not support the term “controller,” at least because not every control unit is a “controller” if the term “controller” is understood as e.g. a standalone device-management structure. Similar analysis applies to the other terms. Consideration of Wands factors is not required because the rejections are “written description” type rejections.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREY SHOSTAK whose telephone number is (408) 918-7617. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7 am - 3 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached on (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ANDREY SHOSTAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
