DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 3/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Specification
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claims 1 and 11: -- light path of fixation light and light path of illumination light. Only optic components are in drawings, no light beams and light paths shown in drawings. So claimed “downstream from and in the light path” and “upstream from and in a light path” become vague.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “…to polarize the light beam” (line 17-18) is vague and renders the claim indefinite. Claim cites “an illumination light source” (line 4), a fixation light (line 9), and plus “light beam reflected by the fundus towards the imaging module” ( see spec. ¶[0006]). Hence, there are more than one light beams; it is unclear “the light beam” in line 17-18 refers to which one of light beams.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Claim 11 has the same undefined issue as that of claim 1 in line 14-15.
Claims 12-20 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 11 through their dependency from claim 11.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collins et al (US 7290882) in a view of Fletcher et al (US 20160296112).
Regarding Claim 1, Collins teaches an ophthalmic imaging system (abstract; figs. 2 and 12-16), comprising:
a first lens group having a positive refractive power (fig. 2, 19; col. 10, line 63, Lens element 19 is a positive element; fig. 14, 21),
an illumination light source capable of forming an illumination zone between the illumination light source and the first lens group (fig. 2, 2/8, and area between 2/8 and 19; fig. 14, 1, and area between 1 and 21);
an imaging module capable of forming an imaging zone between the imaging module and the first lens group, and the imaging zone covering an optical axis of the first lens group (fig. 2, 27, and area between 27 and 19; fig. 14, 26, and area between 26 and 21);
a fixation light for providing a light beam (fig. 14, 12; fig. 20, 1-5), wherein the fixation light comprises at least three light-emitting components (fig. 17, 7—LED array, 7a-7e; fig. 33, LED array, 7a-7e);
a reflective element disposed downstream from and in a light path of the fixation light and disposed upstream from and in a light path of the aspheric first lens (fig. 2, 16; fig. 14, 17-- BROADBAND POLARIZING BEAM SPLITTER);
at least one light-blocking member disposed downstream from and in the light path of the fixation light and disposed upstream from and in a light path of the reflective element (fig. 13, 5- VARIABLE APERTURE, 12- DIODE LASER, 15- BROADBAND BEAM SPLITTER; fig. 22, 6); and
a first polarizer disposed downstream from and in the light path of the fixation light and disposed upstream from and in the light path of the reflective element to polarize the light beam (fig. 2, 15--polarizer, 16; fig. 14, 19- ACHROMATIC LINEAR POLARIZER, 12).
But Collins does not specifically disclose that wherein a first lens group comprising an aspheric first lens.
However, Fletcher teaches an ocular imaging device (abstract; fig. 1), wherein a first lens group comprising an aspheric first lens (fig. 1, 22; ¶[0038], line 5-8, The ophthalmic lens 22 is preferably a 54 diopter double aspheric lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmic imaging system of Collins by the ocular imaging device of Fletcher for a purpose of capable of capturing high-quality, wide field fundus images (¶[0006], line 1-5).
Regarding Claim 2, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the aspheric first lens (fig. 1, 22; ¶[0038], line 5-8, The ophthalmic lens 22 is preferably a 54 diopter double aspheric lens, as disclosed in Fletcher) is a glass-molded lens (--claim term “glass-molded” is of a product-by-process claim, for product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113), and
the at least one light-blocking member is an aperture stop (fig. 13, 5- VARIABLE APERTURE; fig. 22, 6- VARIABLE APERTURE, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 3, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reflective element is a polarizing beam splitter having a reflective surface, and the reflective surface is capable of directing the light beam onto an eyeball to illuminate a fundus of the eyeball (fig. 2, 16/17, 22/23; col. 10, line 26-30, Prism 16 may have a antireflective coating on its top surface and a polarizing beam splitter 17 may be optically bonded to its angled surface; fig. 14, 17-- BROADBAND POLARIZING BEAM SPLITTER, 22/23, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 4, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a first fold mirror disposed downstream from and in the light path of the fixation light and disposed upstream from and in the light path of the reflective element to reflect and direct the light beam towards the reflective element (fig. 13, 12b; fig. 22, 5, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 5, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 4, further comprising a second fold mirror disposed downstream from and in the light path of the fixation light, downstream from and in a light path of the first fold mirror, and upstream from and in the light path of the reflective element (fig. 13, 22; fig. 22, 8, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 6, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 5, further comprising a relay lens disposed in a light path between the first fold mirror and the second fold mirror (fig. 13, 10; fig. 22, 7, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 7, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 5, further comprising a third fold mirror disposed downstream from and in a light path of the illumination light source and disposed upstream from and in a light path of the reflective element (fig. 2, 6/6B, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 8, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 5, wherein the first polarizing element is disposed downstream from and in a light path of the fixation light, the first fold mirror and the second fold mirror (fig. 2, 15; fig. 14, 19, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 9, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a second polarizer disposed downstream from and in a light path of the reflective element and disposed upstream from and in a light path of the imaging module to polarize the light beam from the illumination light source (fig. 16, 25--polarizing element, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 10, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the imaging module includes a second lens group, an infrared light filter and an image sensor, and the infrared light filter is disposed in a light path between the second lens group and the image sensor (fig. 1, 20, 14/12; ¶[0091], line 1-8, most camera modules on commercially available mobile devices now have infrared filters to decrease noise IR from region, as disclosed in Fletcher, --infrared filter in 12, between lens 20 and image sensor of 12).
Regarding Claim 11, Collins teaches an ophthalmic imaging system (abstract; figs. 2 and 12-16), comprising:
a first lens group having a positive refractive power (fig. 2, 19; col. 10, line 63, Lens element 19 is a positive element; fig. 14, 21);
an illumination light source (fig. 2, 2/8, 19; fig. 14, 1, 21);
an imaging module disposed on an optical axis of the first lens group (fig. 2, 27, 19; fig. 14, 26, 21);
a fixation light for providing a light beam (fig. 14, 12; fig. 20, 1-5), wherein the fixation light comprises at least three light-emitting components (fig. 17, 7—LED array, 7a-7e; fig. 33, LED array, 7a-7e);
a reflective element configured to reflect the light beam and direct the light beam towards the aspheric first lens (fig. 2, 16; fig. 14, 17-- BROADBAND POLARIZING BEAM SPLITTER);
at least one light-blocking member disposed downstream from and in a light path of the fixation light and disposed upstream from and in a light path of the reflective element (fig. 13, 5- VARIABLE APERTURE, 12- DIODE LASER, 15- BROADBAND BEAM SPLITTER); and
a first polarizer disposed downstream from and in the light path of the fixation light and disposed upstream from and in the light path of the reflective element to polarize the light beam (fig. 2, 15--polarizer, 16; fig. 14, 19- ACHROMATIC LINEAR POLARIZER, 12).
But Collins does not specifically disclose that wherein a first lens group comprising an aspheric first lens.
However, Fletcher teaches an ocular imaging device (abstract; fig. 1), wherein a first lens group comprising an aspheric first lens (fig. 1, 22; ¶[0038], line 5-8, The ophthalmic lens 22 is preferably a 54 diopter double aspheric lens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmic imaging system of Collins by the ocular imaging device of Fletcher for a purpose of capable of capturing high-quality, wide field fundus images (¶[0006], line 1-5).
Regarding Claim 12, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the aspheric first lens (fig. 1, 22; ¶[0038], line 5-8, The ophthalmic lens 22 is preferably a 54 diopter double aspheric lens, as disclosed in Fletcher) is a glass-molded lens (--claim term “glass-molded” is of a product-by-process claim, for product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113), and
the at least one light-blocking member is an aperture stop (fig. 13, 5- VARIABLE APERTURE; fig. 22, 6- VARIABLE APERTURE, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 13, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 1, wherein the reflective element is a polarizing beam splitter having a reflective surface, and the reflective surface is capable of directing the light beam onto an eyeball to illuminate a fundus of the eyeball (fig. 2, 16/17, 22/23; col. 10, line 26-30, Prism 16 may have a antireflective coating on its top surface and a polarizing beam splitter 17 may be optically bonded to its angled surface; fig. 14, 17-- BROADBAND POLARIZING BEAM SPLITTER, 22/23, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 14, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 11, further comprising a first fold mirror disposed downstream from and in the light path of the fixation light and disposed upstream from and in the light path of the reflective element to reflect and direct the light beam towards the reflective element (fig. 13, 12b; fig. 22, 5, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 15, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 14, further comprising a second fold mirror disposed downstream from and in the light path of the fixation light, downstream from and in a light path of the first fold mirror, and upstream from and in the light path of the reflective element (fig. 13, 22; fig. 22, 8, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 16, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 15, further comprising a relay lens disposed in a light path between the first fold mirror and the second fold mirror (fig. 13, 10; fig. 22, 7, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 17, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 15, further comprising a third fold mirror disposed downstream from and in a light path of the illumination light source and disposed upstream from and in a light path of the reflective element (fig. 2, 6/6B, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 18, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 15, wherein the first polarizing element is disposed downstream from and in a light path of the fixation light, the first fold mirror and the second fold mirror (fig. 2, 15; fig. 14, 19, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 19, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 11, further comprising a second polarizer disposed downstream from and in a light path of the reflective element and disposed upstream from and in a light path of the imaging module to polarize the light beam from the illumination light source (fig. 16, 25--polarizing element, as disclosed in Collins).
Regarding Claim 20, Collins - Fletcher combination teaches that the ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in claim 11, wherein the imaging module includes a second lens group, an infrared light filter and an image sensor, and the infrared light filter is disposed in a light path between the second lens group and the image sensor (fig. 1, 20, 14/12; ¶[0091], line 1-8, most camera modules on commercially available mobile devices now have infrared filters to decrease noise IR from region, as disclosed in Fletcher, --infrared filter in 12, between lens 20 and image sensor of 12).
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application is assigned is (571) 273 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872