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 .
Applicant(s) Response to Official Action
The response filed on 3/18/2026 has been entered and made of record.
Claim Interpretation
Let’s denote the following for the claim portion “the plurality of cameras comprising at least two asymmetric cameras, a first asymmetric camera lacking any corresponding camera symmetrical about the system axis” (claims 1 and 14):
the plurality of cameras C={c0, c1,…cN}, with N≥2;
at least two asymmetric cameras {casyma, casymb}, with casyma ∈ C and casymb ∈ C; and
“a first asymmetric camera” casyma “lacking any corresponding camera symmetrical about the system axis” L.
The Examiner will interpret “at least two asymmetric cameras” as two cameras {casyma, casymb}, among “the plurality of cameras” C, as being not symmetrical to each other about the system axis L (i.e. mirror image of each other about the system axis); wherein none of the other cameras in “the plurality of cameras” C is symmetrical to “a first asymmetric camera” casyma about the system axis L. This interpretation allows casymb to have a camera that in C (excluding casyma) that is arranged symmetrically about the optical axis L, while none of the other cameras in C are allowed to be symmetrical about the optical axis L with casyma.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
Presented arguments have been fully considered, but some are rendered moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendment(s) initiated by the applicant(s). Examiner fully addresses below any arguments that were not rendered moot.
[AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (y)][AltContent: textbox (x)][AltContent: textbox (z)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (L1)][AltContent: textbox (180-1’)][AltContent: textbox (180-2)][AltContent: textbox (180-1)][AltContent: textbox (180-2’)][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: arrow][AltContent: textbox (180-4)][AltContent: textbox (y0)][AltContent: textbox (y0)][AltContent: textbox (180-3)]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Summary of Arguments:
Regarding claims 1 and 14 Applicants respectfully point out that the cameras 180-1 and 180-2 are symmetrical about the optical axis Li since rotating one camera, e.g., the camera 180-1, about the optical axis Li moves the camera to coincide with the other camera, e.g., the camera 180-2. Moreover, a stereoscopic system necessarily includes cameras that are symmetric about an optical axis in order to capture images that mimic human binocular vision. Thus, if the optical head unit of Yoshida includes three or more stereoscopic cameras, each stereoscopic camera would have a corresponding camera symmetric about an optical axis. Furthermore, Yoshida does not actually include the drawing above, nor does it include any 180-3 elements. Accordingly, Yoshida fails to teach the above elements of Claim 1.
Examiner’s Response:
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding claims 1 and 14, Examiner contends that the illustration above (introduced by the Examiner in Office Action dated September 19, 2025) is not meant to add any teachings to Yoshida. The illustration above is to help all parties visualized what is already disclosed in Yoshida. ¶0048 of Yoshida discloses “The stereoscopic cameras 180-1 and 180-2 here are disposed on the XZ plane on the optical axis L1, substantially symmetrically with respect to the optical axis L1. However, the stereoscopic cameras 180-1 and 180-2 may be disposed at positions shifted in the Y direction to reduce an effect of vignetting from eyelashes and an eyelid. The optical head unit 100 may include three or more stereoscopic cameras 180 instead of two.”
As illustrated above, one can clearly when the cameras 180-1 and 180-2 are “shifted in the Y direction” by a non-zero amount y=y0 (y0 can be negative, in this example above y0 is positive), the cameras 180-1 and 180-2 are no longer in the plane (plane x-z) where the “optical axis L1” resides which is consistent with at least interpretation (1) (i.e. there exist not a camera below the plane that is symmetrical to either 180-1 and 180-2 about L1, since all the cameras are above the plane x-z) and (3). Furthermore, for the case of more cameras (as see cited ¶above along with the provided illustration), at least camera 180-3 will not be symmetrical about the L1 to at least one of camera 180-1 or 180-2, since camera 180-3 cannot occupy the space occupied by either 180-1 or 180-2; which satisfies the Examiner’s interpretation above.
Accordingly, Examiner maintains the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 21 and 22 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.
Claims 21 and 22 recites the limitation “the pattern of light comprising a plurality of lines that appear curved at a cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 21 and 22 recite “the pattern of light comprising a plurality of lines that appear curved at a cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves” while respective parent claims 1 and 14 recite “a light projector configured to direct a pattern of light towards at least one eye of the eye region”. For the purpose of examining, “the pattern of light comprising a plurality of lines that appear curved at a cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves” will be interpreted as having for antecedent basis the “reflected pattern of light” from parent claims 1 and 14 since only the reflected light from the eye can “appear curved at a cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves” not the “pattern of light” directed from the “light projector”.
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 of this title, 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 factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 12, 14-16, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas Daniel Raymond et al. [US 20220007934 A1: already of record] in view of Hirofumi Yoshida et al. [US 20220117486 A1: already of record].
Regarding claim 1, Thomas teaches:
1. An ophthalmic system that tracks movement of an eye region (i.e. An eye measurement system… An automatic eye tracking arrangement ascertains a current positional relationship of the eye- Abstract… FIG. 1 illustrates a portion of an example embodiment of an automated non-contact eye examination apparatus for examining the eye of a subject- ¶0048), comprising:
a light projector configured to direct a pattern of light towards at least one eye of the eye region (i.e. the structured lighting comprises a plurality of light-emitting diodes arranged in a pattern around the aperture- ¶0031… Light sources 12200 may be fixed relative to the field of view or may move within it; some light sources may be structured (e.g., images of fingers, or a narrow bright slit); some may be arranged in an array, as described below with respect to FIG. 13- ¶0149… FIG. 13 illustrates an example embodiment of a structured lighting arrangement 13000 which may be used to illuminate eye 15 and to create new fixation directions to facilitate ocular measurements… Structured lighting may be used to illuminate eye 15 and to create new fixation directions to facilitate ocular measurements. Each dot in FIG. 13 represents an individually addressable light source 13200- ¶0152-0153), the eye region comprising one or both eyes, each eye of the eye region having an eye center and an eye axis (i.e. in the past eye alignment has typically required the head of subject 10 to be constrained while the eye measurement system is brought to the desired object plane and the x and y positions (e.g., pupil center). The object plane of the optical system is typically designed to be fixed focus relative to the body of the apparatus. Alignment is achieved by monitoring the x and y positions of a desired fiducial while the z position is adjusted to bring the image into focus. Once alignment is achieved, one or a few measurement images may be captured (e.g., Shack-Hartmann wavefront images).- 0091), the at least one eye yielding a reflected pattern of light (i.e. Light from light sources LS1, LS2, LS3, or LS4 may illuminate eye 15 and create reflected and scattered light that travels toward eye measurement system 3000 entering through aperture or window W1- ¶0113);
a camera system comprising a plurality of cameras configured to yield a plurality of image portions of the eye region, each camera configured to image at least a part of the eye region to yield an image portion of the plurality of image portions, the camera system having a system axis and a system field of view, the eye region comprising one or both eyes, each eye of the eye region having an eye center and an eye axis (i.e. the camera is configured to capture partial fundoscope images of a plurality of different portions of the eye at a corresponding plurality of different gaze angles, and the processing system is configured to stitch together the partial fundoscope images to produce a composite fundoscope image of the eye- ¶0038… FIG. 5 illustrates another example embodiment of an eye alignment arrangement which incorporates cameras 1200. This optical system uses two or more imaging cameras 1200 to provide 6-dimensional (e.g., x,y,z,α,β,χ) position and rotation information of the position of subject 10 relative eye examination apparatus 1000 to permit accurate, real-time alignment of optical system 3500 to subject 10. Structured or unstructured lighting may optionally be supplied to improve the accuracy of the alignment. The two primary features to be tracked include the eye pupils. Cameras 1200 may be stationary with respect to eye examination apparatus 1000, or may move with or independent of optical system 3500. Cameras may optionally be equipped with prisms 5100 to increase the oblique angles that can be captured- ¶0094); and
a computer (i.e. processing system- ¶0018… Processing system 2200 may include one or more processors and memory, including volatile and/or non-volatile memory. The memory may store therein instructions which may be executed by the one or more processors to execute any of the various algorithms or methods disclosed below.- ¶0077) configured to:
repeat the following for a plurality of iteration (i.e. As disclosed above, an eye examination apparatus comprising a multi-function ophthalmic instrument for eye health and vision examinations does not require the subject's head to be constrained during examination. It automatically and continuously aligns an internal eye measurement system to the subject's eye(s) during the measurements, regardless of normal subject motion- ¶0207) to yield a plurality of combined images:
align the plurality of image portions to yield a combined image of the eye region, the combined image showing the pattern line that changes in curvature as the at least one eye moves (i.e. In some versions of these embodiments, the camera is configured to capture partial fundoscope images of a plurality of different portions of the eye at a corresponding plurality of different gaze angles, and the processing system is configured to stitch together the partial fundoscope images to produce a composite fundoscope image of the eye- ¶0038… In some embodiments, a fundus imager may invoke different gaze angles for subject 10 using structured lighting 13200 to attain multiple images with a small field of view which can be stitched together into a high field of view image of the fundus.- ¶0158); and
receive the plurality of image portions from the camera system; align the plurality of image portions to yield a combined image of the eye region (i.e. In some versions of these embodiments, the camera is configured to capture partial fundoscope images of a plurality of different portions of the eye at a corresponding plurality of different gaze angles, and the processing system is configured to stitch together the partial fundoscope images to produce a composite fundoscope image of the eye- ¶0038… In some embodiments, a fundus imager may invoke different gaze angles for subject 10 using structured lighting 13200 to attain multiple images with a small field of view which can be stitched together into a high field of view image of the fundus- ¶0158… Processing system 2200 may employ image processing to undistort the images and then use fundus landmarks to stitch them into a large field of view fundus image- ¶0159… An operation 20240 includes an unseen infrared (IR) illumination illuminating the fundus of the subject's eye(s) under a controlled sequence of gaze angles. Several images of different portions of the fundus may be processed and stitched together to build a larger image of the fundus- ¶0188); and track a movement of at least one eye of the eye region according to the plurality of combined images (i.e. the automatic eye tracking arrangement comprises: at least one light source configured to illuminate the eye; and at least one camera configured to receive an image of the eye, wherein the camera is configured to output image data of the image of the eye to the processing system, and wherein the processing system is configured to control the optical system movement arrangement to move the optical system into the predetermined positional relationship with respect to the eye based on the image data- ¶00018… an automatic eye tracking arrangement which is configured to ascertain a current positional relationship of the eye with respect to the optical system, and in response thereto to control the optical system movement arrangement to move the optical system into a predetermined positional relationship with respect to the eye- ¶0040).
However, Thomas does not teach explicitly:
the plurality of cameras comprising at least two asymmetric cameras, a first asymmetric camera lacking any corresponding camera symmetrical about the system axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Hirofumi teaches:
he plurality of cameras comprising at least two asymmetric cameras, a first asymmetric camera lacking any corresponding camera symmetrical about the system axis (i.e. The stereoscopic cameras 180-1 and 180-2 here are disposed on the XZ plane on the optical axis L1, substantially symmetrically with respect to the optical axis L1. However, the stereoscopic cameras 180-1 and 180-2 may be disposed at positions shifted in the Y direction to reduce an effect of vignetting from eyelashes and an eyelid. The optical head unit 100 may include three or more stereoscopic cameras 180 instead of two- ¶0048).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Thomas with the teachings of Hirofumi to improve the usability of the ophthalmic apparatus (Hirofumi- ¶0121).
Regarding claim 2, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Thomas further teaches:
the computer configured to track the movement of at least one eye in two dimensions (i.e. FIG. 5 illustrates another example embodiment of an eye alignment arrangement which incorporates cameras 1200. This optical system uses two or more imaging cameras 1200 to provide 6-dimensional (e.g., x,y,z,α,β,χ) position and rotation information of the position of subject 10 relative eye examination apparatus 1000 to permit accurate, real-time alignment of optical system 3500 to subject 10- ¶0094).
Regarding claim 3, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Thomas further teaches:
the computer configured to track the movement of at least one eye in three dimensions to allow for 6D tracking (i.e. FIG. 5 illustrates another example embodiment of an eye alignment arrangement which incorporates cameras 1200. This optical system uses two or more imaging cameras 1200 to provide 6-dimensional (e.g., x,y,z,α,β,χ) position and rotation information of the position of subject 10 relative eye examination apparatus 1000 to permit accurate, real-time alignment of optical system 3500 to subject 10. Structured or unstructured lighting may optionally be supplied to improve the accuracy of the alignment. The two primary features to be tracked include the eye pupils. Cameras 1200 may be stationary with respect to eye examination apparatus 1000, or may move with or independent of optical system 3500. Cameras may optionally be equipped with prisms 5100 to increase the oblique angles that can be captured- ¶0094).
Regarding claim 4, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Thomas does not teach explicitly:
the plurality of cameras comprising a set of stereoscopic cameras arranged symmetrically about the system axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Hirofumi teaches:
the plurality of cameras comprising a set of stereoscopic cameras arranged symmetrically about the system axis (i.e. Stereoscopic cameras 180-1 and 180-2 each including a lens and an image sensor are disposed on optical axes L6-1 and L6-2 different from the optical axis L1, respectively. The stereoscopic cameras 180-1 and 180-2 are examples of an observation unit. For anterior eye observation, the stereoscopic cameras 180-1 and 180-2 are disposed on the XZ plane on the optical axis L1, substantially symmetrically with respect to the optical axis L1, and substantially simultaneously capture stereoscopic images of the anterior eye part Ea of the eye E to be inspected in different directions. Pixel values obtained by the stereoscopic cameras 180-1 and 180-2 are output to a display unit 310 that is an example of the display unit via the control unit 300. The display unit 310 may be a touch panel to which the user can input instructions by tapping. Here, the user's touching operation on the touch panel will be referred to as a tap. An anterior eye part observation light source 125 disposed near the objective lens 101 illuminates the anterior eye part Ea of the eye E to be inspected- ¶0047).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Thomas with the teachings of Hirofumi to improve the usability of the ophthalmic apparatus (Hirofumi- ¶0121).
Regarding claim 5, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Thomas does not teach explicitly:
the plurality of cameras comprising a coaxial camera aligned with the system axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Hirofumi teaches:
the plurality of cameras comprising a coaxial camera aligned with the system axis (i.e. image sensor 136 are arranged on the optical axis L3 in a transmission direction of the first dichroic mirror 102- ¶0036).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Thomas with the teachings of Hirofumi to improve the usability of the ophthalmic apparatus (Hirofumi- ¶0121).
Regarding claim 12, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1 and Thomas further teaches:
further comprising a light projector configured to direct a pattern of light towards at least one eye of the eye region; and at least one camera configured to detect the pattern of light reflected by the at least one eye (i.e. In some embodiments, the apparatus further comprises a structured lighting device, wherein the structured lighting device is configured for at least one of: eye imaging, keratometry, eye motility testing, and slit lamp imaging of the eye- ¶0030-0031… FIG. 5 illustrates another example embodiment of an eye alignment arrangement which incorporates cameras 1200. This optical system uses two or more imaging cameras 1200 to provide 6-dimensional (e.g., x,y,z,α,β,χ) position and rotation information of the position of subject 10 relative eye examination apparatus 1000 to permit accurate, real-time alignment of optical system 3500 to subject 10. Structured or unstructured lighting may optionally be supplied to improve the accuracy of the alignment. The two primary features to be tracked include the eye pupils. Cameras 1200 may be stationary with respect to eye examination apparatus 1000, or may move with or independent of optical system 3500. Cameras may optionally be equipped with prisms 5100 to increase the oblique angles that can be captured- ¶0094).
Regarding claims 14-16 and 19, method claim 14-16 and 19 correspond to apparatus claims 1-3 and 12, respectively, and therefore are also rejected for the same rationale as listed above.
Regarding claim 20, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Thomas does not teach explicitly:
the plurality of cameras comprising an asymmetrically arranged camera, the asymmetrically arranged camera lacking a corresponding camera symmetrical about the system axis.
In the same field of endeavor, Hirofumi teaches:
the plurality of cameras comprising an asymmetrically arranged camera, the asymmetrically arranged camera lacking a corresponding camera symmetrical about the system axis (i.e. However, the stereoscopic cameras 180-1 and 180-2 may be disposed at positions shifted in the Y direction to reduce an effect of vignetting from eyelashes and an eyelid. The optical head unit 100 may include three or more stereoscopic cameras 180 instead of two- ¶0048).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Thomas with the teachings of Hirofumi to improve the usability of the ophthalmic apparatus (Hirofumi- ¶0121).
Regarding claim 21, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1.
the pattern of light comprising a plurality of lines that appear curved at a cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves (i.e. he angle ranges measured are further bounded by providing a visual target for eye 15 to look at while being measured. Deviations may occur from saccadic movements which can be detected and excluded when necessary- ¶0092); the plurality of image portions showing the cornea of the at least one eye, the plurality of images portions showing the plurality of lines that appear curved at the cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves; and the computer configured to track the movement of at least one eye of the eye region according to the plurality of combined images that show the plurality of lines that appear curved at the cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves(Examiner’s Interpretation: The preceding claim portion is being interpreted as Nonfunctional Descriptive Material. As specified in ¶0043 of the Applicant’s Original disclosure, the claim portion is the result of projecting line patterns onto the cornea. Lights reflected from the surface of an moving eyeball would necessarily reflect changes in the projected structured light, since an eyeball does not have uniform curvature. Furthermore, Thomas teaches the projection of an equivalent light pattern onto the eye which would necessarily result to the Nonfunctional Descriptive Material recited in the claim when there is eye movement).
Regarding claim 22, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 14.
the pattern of light comprising a plurality of lines that appear curved at a cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves(i.e. The angle ranges measured are further bounded by providing a visual target for eye 15 to look at while being measured. Deviations may occur from saccadic movements which can be detected and excluded when necessary- ¶0092); the plurality of image portions showing the cornea of the at least one eye, the plurality of images portions showing the plurality of lines that appear curved at the cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves; and tracking the movement of at least one eye of the eye region according to the plurality of combined images that show the plurality of lines that appear curved at the cornea of the at least one eye and that change in curvature as the at least one eye moves (Examiner’s Interpretation: The preceding claim portion is being interpreted as Nonfunctional Descriptive Material. As specified in ¶0043 of the Applicant’s Original disclosure, the claim portion is the result of projecting line patterns onto the cornea. Lights reflected from the surface of an moving eyeball would necessarily reflect changes in the projected structured light, since an eyeball does not have uniform curvature. Furthermore, Thomas teaches the projection of an equivalent light pattern onto the eye which would necessarily result to the Nonfunctional Descriptive Material recited in the claim when there is eye movement).
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas Daniel Raymond et al. [US 20220007934 A1: already of record] in view of Hirofumi Yoshida et al. [US 20220117486 A1: already of record] and further view of Robert T. Lyons et al. [US 20060141049 A1: already of record].
Regarding claim 8, Thomas and Hirofumi teach teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Thomas and Hirofumi do not teach explicitly:
the plurality of cameras comprising a higher resolution camera configured to generate images with greater than 4 megapixels.
In the same field of endeavor, Robert teaches:
the plurality of cameras comprising a higher resolution camera configured to generate images with greater than 4 megapixels (i.e. The photograph was taken with an 11.0 megapixel, digital Zeiss FF450 fundus camera coupled to the Zeiss 481 Visupac image capture and analysis system- ¶0033).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Thomas and Hirofumi with the teachings of Robert to maintain or to improve visual acuity (Robert- ¶0131).
Regarding claim 18, method claim 18 corresponds to apparatus claim 8, and therefore is also rejected for the same reasons of obviousness as listed above.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas Daniel Raymond et al. [US 20220007934 A1: already of record] in view of Hirofumi Yoshida et al. [US 20220117486 A1: already of record]] and further view of Francis A. L'Esperance, Jr. [US 6494576 B1: already of record].
Regarding claim 9, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Thomas and Hirofumi do not teach explicitly:
at least one camera configured to detect a range of visible light from the eye region to yield an image portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Francis teaches:
at least one camera configured to detect a range of visible light from the eye region to yield an image portion (i.e. A spectrophotometric apparatus as set forth in claim 10, wherein said receiver detector comprises a video camera for detecting electromagnetic energy, principally in the ultraviolet, visible, infrared, and microwave region of that spectrum, emerging from the cornea, after transversing the choroid and retina and reflecting back from the sclera, in such a way to form a photographic-like image or picture- claim 28).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Thomas and Hirofumi with the teaching Francis to use different frequencies/wavelengths/lasers to determine curves for different materials because a better separation might be found (Francis- Col 8, line 33-36).
Regarding claim 10, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Thomas and Hirofumi do not teach explicitly:
at least one camera configured to detect a range of infrared light from the eye region to yield an image portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Francis teaches:
at least one camera configured to detect a range of infrared light from the eye region to yield an image portion (i.e. A spectrophotometric apparatus as set forth in claim 10, wherein said receiver detector comprises a video camera for detecting electromagnetic energy, principally in the ultraviolet, visible, infrared, and microwave region of that spectrum, emerging from the cornea, after transversing the choroid and retina and reflecting back from the sclera, in such a way to form a photographic-like image or picture- claim 28).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Thomas and Hirofumi with the teaching Francis to use different frequencies/wavelengths/lasers to determine curves for different materials because a better separation might be found (Francis- Col 8, line 33-36).
Regarding claim 11, Thomas and Hirofumi teach all the limitations of claim 1.
However, Thomas and Hirofumi do not teach explicitly:
at least one camera configured to detect a range of ultraviolet light from the eye region to yield an image portion.
In the same field of endeavor, Francis teaches:
at least one camera configured to detect a range of ultraviolet light from the eye region to yield an image portion (i.e. A spectrophotometric apparatus as set forth in claim 10, wherein said receiver detector comprises a video camera for detecting electromagnetic energy, principally in the ultraviolet, visible, infrared, and microwave region of that spectrum, emerging from the cornea, after transversing the choroid and retina and reflecting back from the sclera, in such a way to form a photographic-like image or picture- claim 28).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the teachings of Thomas and Hirofumi with the teaching Francis to use different frequencies/wavelengths/lasers to determine curves for different materials because a better separation might be found (Francis- Col 8, line 33-36).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLIFFORD HILAIRE whose telephone number is (571)272-8397. The examiner can normally be reached 5:30-1400.
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, SATH V PERUNGAVOOR can be reached at (571)272-7455. 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.
CLIFFORD HILAIRE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2488
/CLIFFORD HILAIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2488
Prosecution Insights