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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 11/21/2023 and 1/15/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 4 is 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,
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the imaging arrangement" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the sake of compact prosecution, the examiner has interpreted the limitation "the imaging arrangement" to mean the imaging apparatus.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenholz (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0299036 A1) in view of Zhang (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0110753 A1).
Goldenholz teaches, as claimed in independent claim 1, an ophthalmoscope (Figs. 2) configured to acquire video of an eye (¶0020 “record still images from the camera once focused on the retina, or record video of parts or the entire ophthalmologic exam”), the ophthalmoscope (100) comprising a light source (105) emitting a beam of non-coherent light1 (¶0040 “the light source emit infrared radiation and having an image sensor that is sensitive to the wavelengths of infrared radiation”) which in use impinges on the eye (106), an imaging apparatus (118) which acquires plural images of at least part of the eye (¶0030 “The digital camera displays processed images of the retina of the eye 106 of the patient 108 on display 122”), each of the plural images acquired when non-coherent light from the light source (105) impinges on the eye (¶0021 “light being reflected from the patient's retina and passing through the focusing optics is coupled with an image sensor for ultimate display”), and a processor (¶0028 “image processor”), Goldenholz fails to teach a processor configured to of control the imaging apparatus such that time adjacent images are acquired with a predetermined period therebetween. In a related art, Zhang teaches an ophthalmoscope (2203) configured to acquire video of an eye (¶0094 “imaging component is a digital ophthalmoscope. In some embodiments, the imaging component is configured to capture images and/or video (including stills from the video)”), processor configured to control the imaging apparatus (¶0141 “computer system 2101 that is programmed or otherwise configured to carry out executable instructions such as for carrying out image analysis”) such that time adjacent images are acquired with a predetermined period therebetween2 and record a time of acquisition of each of a plurality of the plural images and to associate each time of acquisition with the respective image (¶0090 “captured images are time-stamped”)3, whereby the acquired plural images are related in time to one another and thereby constitute video of the eye (106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ophthalmoscope, as taught by Goldenholz, with the processor, as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of providing a way to analyze ophthalmic images generated using at least one ophthalmic medical imaging technique selected from optical coherence tomography (¶0061).
Goldenholz teaches, as claimed 2, teaches an optical device configured to carry out digital image stabilization of the acquired plural images (¶0042 “Digital stabilization techniques would stabilize retinal images via software techniques at the expense of image resolution”).
Goldenholz teaches, as claimed 3, ophthalmoscope, is shaped and sized to be gripped in one hand (“a portable, handheld direct ophthalmoscope 100” also see handle 104).
Goldenholz teaches, as claimed 20, a method of acquiring video of an eye (¶0020 “record still images from the camera once focused on the retina, or record video of parts or the entire ophthalmologic exam”) with an ophthalmoscope (Fig. 2), the ophthalmoscope comprising a light source (105), an imaging apparatus (118), and a processor (¶0028 “image processor”), the method comprising positioning the ophthalmoscope whereby a beam of non-coherent light4 (¶0040 “the light source emit infrared radiation and having an image sensor that is sensitive to the wavelengths of infrared radiation”) emitted by the light source (105) impinges on the eye (106) and the imaging apparatus acquires plural images of at least part of the eye (106), each of the plural images acquired when non-coherent light from the light source impinges on the eye (106), Goldenholz fails to teach a processor configured to at least one of control the imaging apparatus such that time adjacent images are acquired with a predetermined period therebetween. In a related art, Zhang teaches an ophthalmoscope (2203) configured to acquire video of an eye (¶0094 “imaging component is a digital ophthalmoscope. In some embodiments, the imaging component is configured to capture images and/or video (including stills from the video)”), processor configured to at least one of: control the imaging apparatus (¶0141 “computer system 2101 that is programmed or otherwise configured to carry out executable instructions such as for carrying out image analysis”) such that time adjacent images are acquired with a predetermined period therebetween and record a time of acquisition of each of a plurality of the plural images and to associate each time of acquisition with the respective image (¶0090 “captured images are time-stamped”) , whereby the acquired plural images are related in time to one another and thereby constitute video of the eye (106).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ophthalmoscope, as taught by Goldenholz, with the processor, as taught by Zhang, for the purpose of providing a way to analyze ophthalmic images generated using at least one ophthalmic medical imaging technique selected from optical coherence tomography (¶0061).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenholz (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0299036 A1) in view of Zhang (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0110753 A1) and in further view of Imamura (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0289258 A1).
Goldenholz and Zhang fail to teach, as claimed in claim 5, in which the processor controls the rate of acquisition of images by controlling the imaging apparatus, the plural images acquired at a rate of between 10 and 50 frames per second. In a related art, Imamura teaches an ophthalmoscope in which the processor controls the rate of acquisition of images by controlling the imaging apparatus (¶0078 “image processing unit 130 acquires the preset value list 121 of imaging conditions from the storage unit 120”), the plural images acquired at a rate of between 10 and 50 frames per second (¶0079 “preset values relating to acquisition of non-confocal images is…16 fps”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ophthalmoscope, as taught by Goldenholz and Zhang, with the processor, as taught by Imamura, for the purpose of providing confocal images that have a small focal depth are not used for observing fine structures (¶0080).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenholz (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0299036 A1) in view of Zhang (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0110753 A1) and in further view of Beane (US Patent Publication Number 2002/0073429 A1).
Goldenholz and Zhang fail to teach, as claimed in claim 6, configured to acquire lossless video. In a related art, Beane teaches a medical video capturing device configured to acquire lossless video (¶0090 “able to retrieve and view the lossless video data set”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ophthalmoscope, as taught by Goldenholz and Zhang, with the lossless video, as taught by Beane, for the purpose of providing an option for stopping the image at a selected video frame (¶0023).
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenholz (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0299036 A1) in view of Zhang (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0110753 A1) and in further view of Liesfeld (US Patent Number 9,532,712).
Goldenholz teaches, as claimed 4, comprising a main body (103), the main body (103) defining at least one internal space in which the light source, the imaging arrangement, and the processor are accommodated, the mainbody (103) further defining a window (112) through which the non-coherent light from the light source (103) is directed towards the eye (106), and the imaging arrangement (118) acquiring the plural images by way of an imaging path (115) which passes through the window (112), Goldenholz fails to explicitly teach the main body defining at least one internal space in which the light source, the imaging arrangement, and the processor are accommodated. In a related art, Liesfield teaches main body (1) defining at least one internal space in which the light source (2), the imaging arrangement (6), and the processor (10) are accommodated.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ophthalmoscope, as taught by Goldenholz and Zhang, with main body, as taught by Liesfeld, for the purpose of providing a way to compare the reference image with the control image, and thus to be able to assess physiological effects of laser irradiation on the fundus of the eye. (Col. 4, lines 66 and 67).
Goldenholz and Zhang fail to teach, as claimed in claim 12, which is configured for differential imaging in respect of at least one of a single acquired images and video constituted by the plural acquired images. In a related art, Liesfeld teaches which is configured for differential imaging in respect of at least one of a single acquired images and video constituted by the plural acquired images (Col 5, lines 42-47 “the difference values between pixel values of the reference image and the control image are calculated. An intermediate image (not shown herein) generated from these difference values is segmented on the basis of three predetermined value ranges into image segments which will be allocated to a first, a second and a third segment class on the basis of the respective value range”, Fig.2 show time sequence of images which is known as a video).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ophthalmoscope, as taught by Goldenholz and Zhang, with the differential imaging, as taught by Liesfeld, for the purpose providing a way to compare the reference image with the control image, and thus to be able to assess physiological effects of laser irradiation on the fundus of the eye. (Col. 4, lines 66 and 67).
Claim 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldenholz (US Patent Publication Number 2011/0299036 A1) in view of Zhang (US Patent Publication Number 2019/0110753 A1) and in further view of Razali (WO Patent Publication Number 2021/006815 A1).
Goldenholz and Zhang fail to teach, as in claim 15, which the imaging apparatus is mounted in the ophthalmoscope for movement back and forward within the ophthalmoscope relative to at least one imaging lens comprised in the ophthalmoscope, said movement under control of the processor, to thereby provide for focusing to address refractive error of the eye. In a related art, Razali teaches an optical device which the imaging apparatus (104) is mounted in the ophthalmoscope for movement back and forward within the ophthalmoscope (100, ¶0051“ pupil detection may assist in correctly centering the camera 104 with respect to the pupil center by adjusting the stepper motors 106 for controlling x-axis and z axis”) relative to at least one imaging lens (102) comprised in the ophthalmoscope (100), said movement under control of the processor (108), to thereby provide for focusing to address refractive error of the eye (¶0070 “method of eye screening of the present disclosure may be used to screen for cataract, glaucoma, Age Related Macular Degeneration, Diabetic Retinopathy and other eye conditions”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ophthalmoscope, as taught by Goldenholz and Zhang, with the imaging apparatus moving, as taught by Razali, for the purpose of providing a way to acquire a high-quality image (¶0045).
Goldenholz and Zhang fail to teach, as in claim 16, further comprising a focusing mechanism which moves the imaging apparatus back and forward, the focusing mechanism comprising a stepper motor and a translating mechanism which translates rotation of the stepper motor to linear movement of the imaging apparatus. In a related art, Razali teaches comprising a focusing mechanism which moves the imaging apparatus back and forward, the focusing mechanism comprising a stepper motor (106) and a translating mechanism (See rails attached to stepper motors 106) which translates rotation of the stepper motor to linear movement of the imaging apparatus (0051“ pupil detection may assist in correctly centering the camera 104 with respect to the pupil center by adjusting the stepper motors 106 for controlling x-axis and z axis”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill of the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the ophthalmoscope, as taught by Goldenholz and Zhang, with the imaging apparatus moving, as taught by Razali, for the purpose of providing a way to acquire a high-quality image (¶0045).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-11, 13, 14 and 17-19 are 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.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 7 which includes the emitted red light is used as a guide beam for alignment of the ophthalmoscope with the eye while feedback on alignment is provided to the user by way of the display.
Regarding claim 8 has dependency on claim 7.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 9 which includes in which the light source emits light of different wavelength compositions at different times, and video of the eye is constituted for the light of each of the different wavelength compositions.
Regarding claims 10 and 11 has dependency on claim 9.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 13 which includes which differential imaging comprises acquiring at least one image when the eye is illuminated with light of different wavelength compositions.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 14 which includes in which differential imaging comprises acquiring at least two images at different times with emitted light of substantially the same spectral composition.
The prior art fails to teach all of the limitations of claim 17, which includes, n imaging path for the plural acquired images within the ophthalmoscope extending in a second direction opposite to the first direction between the eye and the ophthalmoscope and then for part of the imaging path within the ophthalmoscope, the optical path redirecting arrangement changing the imaging path from the second direction to a third direction.
Regarding claims 18 and 19 has dependency on claim 7.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pettersson (US Patent Publication Number 2017/0289454 A1) teaches optical device configured to carry out digital image stabilization of the acquired plural images.
Dyer (US Patent Publication Number 2010/0245765 A1) an ophthalmoscope configured to acquire video of an eye.
Robertson (US Patent Publication Number 2015/0296109 A1) an optical device that images apart of the human body.
Bersetka (US Patent Number 10,092,183 B2) an ophthalmoscope configured to acquire video of an eye.
Su (US Patent Publication Number 2018/0160903 A1) an eye imaging apparatus emitters having a first wavelength range and a second type of front imaging module may include light emitters having a second wavelength range different from the first.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOURNEY F SUMLAR whose telephone number is (571)270-0656. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4pm.
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.
JOURNEY F. SUMLAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
02 January 2026
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 Coherent light is defined by having a single wavelength. ¶0040 states “wavelengths of infrared radiation” the examiner interprets this to means the light source has more than one wavelength and the image sensor is sensitive to those wavelengths which would mean that the light is non-coherent.
2 A video is made of a plurality of time ordered adjacent images where the period between each image would inherently have period in between.
3 By having a video, each image (of the video) represents a scene ay different movement in time.
4 Coherent light is defined by having a single wavelength. ¶0040 states “wavelengths of infrared radiation” the examiner interprets this to means the light source has more than one wavelength and the image sensor is sensitive to those wavelengths which would mean that the light is non-coherent.