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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/06/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the Examiner.
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 1-3, 6-7, 11-13 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 4,738,521) in view of Rogers (US 4,934,771).
Regarding claim 1, Volk discloses an ophthalmic loupe for generating an aerial image of a portion of an eye (Figure 2), the ophthalmic loupe comprising: at least one lens (in at least abstract discloses: lens, for use in indirect ophthalmoscopy) having at least two lens faces (in at least abstract discloses: lens, has a front and back surface, therefore considered faces), wherein at least one of the at least two lens faces is an aspheric lens face (in at least abstract discloses: front and back surfaces of lens are aspheric surfaces) which in combination with a remaining lens face or remaining lens faces of the at least one lens generates an aerial image of the portion of the eye (in at least abstract discloses: image forming lens which forms an aerial image of the fundus of the eye).
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus with a field of view with a negative distortion in its outer region, and wherein an absolute value of the negative distortion at an edge of the field of view is larger than 15%. Volk and Rogers are related because both disclose lens systems.
Rogers teaches an apparatus with a field of view with a negative distortion in its outer region (Col. 2, lines 8-9 teach: barrel distortion; Examiner notes that barrel distortion is considered negative and effecting the outer region of the field of view of the lens), and wherein an absolute value of the negative distortion at an edge of the field of view is larger than 15% (Col. 2, lines 8-9 teach: barrel distortion, is preferably at least about 30%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Rogers and provide an apparatus with a field of view with a negative distortion in its outer region, and wherein an absolute value of the negative distortion at an edge of the field of view is larger than 15%. Doing so would allow for better apparent linearity of picture over the entire viewed format (Rogers: Col. 2, lines 14-16), thereby improving the overall performance and quality of the optical system.
The Applicant is reminded that claim preamble language, an ophthalmic loupe for generating an aerial image of a portion of an eye, may not be treated as a limitation where it merely states an intended use of the system and is unnecessary to define the invention. Catalina Marketing Int'l Inc. v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., Fed. Cir., No. 01-1324, 5/8/02. It has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and the portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause. Kropa v. Robie, 88 USPQ 478 (CCPA 1951). Accordingly, the functional claim language including the intended use set forth in the preamble has not been given the same patentable weight as a positively recited feature or structural relationship. Instead the Examiner has applied any prior art thereto by deducing whether the structure disclosed or taught by the reference is capable of performing the functional limitations and the intended use or purpose recited in the preamble, within the overall context of the claim, as applicable.
Regarding claim 2, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1.
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion. However, choosing distortion vs field height is considered a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Rogers discusses in Col. 2, barrel distortion increasing with larger magnitude toward the edge, choosing how much of the periphery exhibit is a matter of degree, not kind. This would improve the picture viewed by the observer so that it may be made adequately undistorted by levels of barrel and pincushion distortion which do not completely balance, in order to give the subjectively most linear picture over all the viewed format including the corners. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the distortion vs field height described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple optimized field heights of lenses relative to distortion, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 3, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1.
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at most an innermost 60% of the field of view has no distortion or a positive distortion, and wherein the positive distortion has a maximum absolute value of less than 0.75%. However, choosing distortion vs field height is considered a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Rogers discusses in Col. 2, barrel distortion increasing with larger magnitude toward the edge, choosing how much of the periphery exhibit is a matter of degree, not kind. This would improve the picture viewed by the observer so that it may be made adequately undistorted by levels of barrel and pincushion distortion which do not completely balance, in order to give the subjectively most linear picture over all the viewed format including the corners. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at most an innermost 60% of the field of view has no distortion or a positive distortion, and wherein the positive distortion has a maximum absolute value of less than 0.75% since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the distortion vs field height described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple optimized field heights of lenses relative to distortion, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at most an innermost 60% of the field of view has no distortion or a positive distortion, and wherein the positive distortion has a maximum absolute value of less than 0.75% represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 6, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1, wherein the ophthalmic loupe is configured as a lens system which includes at least two lenses (Rogers: Figure 1 depicts: 1, objective lens, 4, eye-piece lens; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Regarding claim 7, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1, wherein the ophthalmic loupe is configured as a lens system which includes no more than three lenses (Figure 2 depicts: one lens).
Regarding claim 11, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1, wherein no more than two aspheric lens faces are present (Figure 2 depicts: one lens, therefore no more than two aspheric lens faces are present, and both faces are considered aspheric).
Regarding claim 12, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 11, wherein all other lens faces are spherical lens faces (Examiner notes that Volk discloses a single lens face, therefore the set of “other lens faces” is empty; a statement about all members of an empty set is satisfied by default).
Regarding claim 13, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1, wherein two aspheric lens faces are present, and wherein the two aspheric lens faces are lens faces of a same lens (Figure 1 depicts: one lens; in at least abstract discloses: front and back surfaces of lens are aspheric surfaces).
Regarding claim 17, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1.
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face in combination with the remaining lens face or the remaining lens faces generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion. However, choosing distortion vs field height is considered a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Rogers discusses in Col. 2, barrel distortion increasing with larger magnitude toward the edge, choosing how much of the periphery exhibit is a matter of degree, not kind. This would improve the picture viewed by the observer so that it may be made adequately undistorted by levels of barrel and pincushion distortion which do not completely balance, in order to give the subjectively most linear picture over all the viewed format including the corners. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the distortion vs field height described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple optimized field heights of lenses relative to distortion, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Regarding claim 18, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1.
Volk fails to disclose wherein the aspheric lens face in combination with the remaining lens face or the remaining lens faces generates an aerial image in which at most an innermost 60% of the field of view has no distortion or a positive distortion, and wherein the positive distortion has a maximum absolute value of less than 0.75%. However, choosing distortion vs field height is considered a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Rogers discusses in Col. 2, barrel distortion increasing with larger magnitude toward the edge, choosing how much of the periphery exhibit is a matter of degree, not kind. This would improve the picture viewed by the observer so that it may be made adequately undistorted by levels of barrel and pincushion distortion which do not completely balance, in order to give the subjectively most linear picture over all the viewed format including the corners. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at most an innermost 60% of the field of view has no distortion or a positive distortion, and wherein the positive distortion has a maximum absolute value of less than 0.75% since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the distortion vs field height described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple optimized field heights of lenses relative to distortion, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at most an innermost 60% of the field of view has no distortion or a positive distortion, and wherein the positive distortion has a maximum absolute value of less than 0.75% represents a routine variation within the skill of the art.
Claims 4 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 4,738,521) in view of Rogers (US 4,934,771), as applied to claim 2 above, in view of Fisher et al. (US 3,953,111).
Regarding claim 4, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 2, wherein the aspheric lens face leads to a negative distortion (Rogers: Col. 2, lines 8-9 teach: barrel distortion; Examiner notes that barrel distortion is considered negative and effecting the outer region of the field of view of the lens; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus which at least in the outer 40% of the field of view, increases disproportionately in a direction of the edge of the field of view. Volk and Fisher are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens has negative distortion in at least the outer 40% of the field of view. However, choosing distortion vs field height is considered a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Rogers discusses in Col. 2, barrel distortion increasing with larger magnitude toward the edge, choosing how much of the periphery exhibit is a matter of degree, not kind. This would improve the picture viewed by the observer so that it may be made adequately undistorted by levels of barrel and pincushion distortion which do not completely balance, in order to give the subjectively most linear picture over all the viewed format including the corners. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the distortion vs field height described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple optimized field heights of lenses relative to distortion, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion represents a routine variation within the skill of the art
Fisher teaches an apparatus distortion increases disproportionately in a direction of the edge of the field of view (in at least abstract teaches: a non-linear lens with disproportionately large areas of the image and disproportionately small areas of the image based on image height; this disproportionality is considered to include at least the outer 40%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Fisher and provide an apparatus wherein distortion increases disproportionately in a direction of the edge of the field of view. Doing so would allow for compensation of competing design constraints such as resolution, field of view and system complexity, thereby improving the overall functionality and performance of the optical system.
Regarding claim 19, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 2, wherein the aspheric lens face in combination with the remaining lens face or the remaining lens faces leads to a negative distortion (Rogers: Col. 2, lines 8-9 teach: barrel distortion; Examiner notes that barrel distortion is considered negative and effecting the outer region of the field of view of the lens; Examiner notes that the same motivation to combine applied to an earlier claim, 1, also applies here, and no further analysis is required, consistent with MPEP § 2143, which permits reliance on previously articulated rationale where the combination and reasonings remain unchanged).
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus which, at least in the outer 40% of the field of view, increases disproportionately in a direction of the edge of the field of view. Volk and Fisher are related because both disclose optical lenses.
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens has negative distortion in at least the outer 40% of the field of view. However, choosing distortion vs field height is considered a design choice and well within the bounds of normal experimentation. See MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960), In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975), and In re Gazda, 219 F.2d 449, 104 USPQ 400 (CCPA 1955). Rogers discusses in Col. 2, barrel distortion increasing with larger magnitude toward the edge, choosing how much of the periphery exhibit is a matter of degree, not kind. This would improve the picture viewed by the observer so that it may be made adequately undistorted by levels of barrel and pincushion distortion which do not completely balance, in order to give the subjectively most linear picture over all the viewed format including the corners. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to design choice to design an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion since it is not inventive to dis-cover the optimum or workable designs by routine experimentation. Since applicant has not disclosed that designing the distortion vs field height described in the instant application solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose. Moreover, it appears that the invention would perform equally well with multiple optimized field heights of lenses relative to distortion, and success in doing so would have been predictable. Therefore, the claimed use of an apparatus wherein the aspheric lens face generates an aerial image in which at least an outer 40% of the field of view has a negative distortion represents a routine variation within the skill of the art
Fisher teaches a lens wherein distortion increases disproportionately in a direction of the edge of the field of view (in at least abstract teaches: a non-linear lens with disproportionately large areas of the image and disproportionately small areas of the image based on image height; this disproportionality is considered to include at least the outer 40%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Fisher and provide a lens wherein distortion increases disproportionately in a direction of the edge of the field of view. Doing so would allow for compensation of competing design constraints such as resolution, field of view and system complexity, thereby improving the overall functionality and performance of the optical system.
Claims 5 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 4,738,521) in view of Rogers (US 4,934,771) in view of Fisher et al. (US 3,953,111), as applied to claim 4 above, in view of Williamson (US 2022/0095912).
Regarding claim 5, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 4, wherein the aspheric lens face leads to a distortion which, in the outer 40% of the field of view, can be described by a polynomial V(r) whose second derivative can be approximated by a straight line with (Examiner notes that in optics radial distortion is routinely modeled as
V
r
=
a
1
r
+
a
3
r
3
+
a
5
r
5
+
…
; absent of constraints for V(r), the field of view distortion, including the outer 40% of the field, of Volk can be modeled as a polynomial).
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein a coefficient of determination of at least R2 > 99%, and wherein r describes a distance of a field point in the field of view from the center of the field of view, normalized to the maximum radius of the field of view. Volk and Williamson are related because both disclose optical systems.
Williamson teaches an apparatus wherein a coefficient of determination of at least R2 > 99%, and wherein r describes a distance of a field point in the field of view from the center of the field of view, normalized to the maximum radius of the field of view ([0020] teaches: two identical lens elements; Examiner notes that two identical lens elements would have an R2 value of at least 99%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Williamson and provide an apparatus wherein a coefficient of determination of at least R2 > 99%, and wherein r describes a distance of a field point in the field of view from the center of the field of view, normalized to the maximum radius of the field of view. Doing so would allow for mathematical characterization and predicable control of the distortion behavior across the field of view, thereby improving overall performance and quality of the optical system.
Regarding claim 20, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 4, wherein the aspheric lens face leads to a distortion which, in the outer 40% of the field of view, can be described by a polynomial V(r) whose second derivative can be approximated by a straight line with (Examiner notes that in optics radial distortion is routinely modeled as
V
r
=
a
1
r
+
a
3
r
3
+
a
5
r
5
+
…
; absent of constraints for V(r), the field of view distortion, including the outer 40% of the field, of Volk can be modeled as a polynomial).
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein a coefficient of determination of at least R2 > 99%, and wherein r describes a distance of a field point in the field of view from the center of the field of view, normalized to the maximum radius of the field of view. Volk and Williamson are related because both disclose optical systems.
Williamson teaches an apparatus wherein a coefficient of determination of at least R2 > 99%, and wherein r describes a distance of a field point in the field of view from the center of the field of view, normalized to the maximum radius of the field of view ([0020] teaches: two identical lens elements; Examiner notes that two identical lens elements would have an R2 value of at least 99%).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Williamson and provide an apparatus wherein a coefficient of determination of at least R2 > 99%, and wherein r describes a distance of a field point in the field of view from the center of the field of view, normalized to the maximum radius of the field of view. Doing so would allow for mathematical characterization and predicable control of the distortion behavior across the field of view, thereby improving overall performance and quality of the optical system.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 4,738,521) in view of Rogers (US 4,934,771), as applied to claim 6 above, in view of Hogberg et al. (US 2018/0141153).
Regarding claim 8, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 6.
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the lens system includes a first lens configured to form an eye-side end of the lens system when the ophthalmic loupe is used and a second lens configured to form an aerial image-side end of the lens system when the ophthalmic loupe is used, wherein the first lens includes a first lens face facing the eye when the ophthalmic loupe is used, wherein the second lens includes a second lens face forming the last lens face in front of the aerial image when the ophthalmic loupe is used, and wherein at least one of the first lens face has a radius of curvature of at least 100 mm and the second lens face has a radius of curvature of at least 100 mm. Volk and Hogberg are related because both disclose optical systems.
Hogbert teaches disclose an apparatus wherein the lens system includes a first lens (Figure 1 depicts: 100, first lens element) configured to form an eye-side end of the lens system (therefore considered to be analogous to the eye-side of the lens system) when the ophthalmic loupe is used and a second lens (Figure 1 depicts: 200, second lens element) configured to form an aerial image-side end of the lens system when the ophthalmic loupe is used (therefore considered to be analogous to the image-side end of the lens system), wherein the first lens includes a first lens face facing the eye when the ophthalmic loupe is used (Figure 1 depicts: left hand side of 100, first lens element), wherein the second lens includes a second lens face forming the last lens face in front of the aerial image when the ophthalmic loupe is used (Figure 2 depicts: right hand side of 200, second lens element), and wherein at least one of the first lens face has a radius of curvature of at least 100 mm ([0017] teaches: first surface of first lens have a radius of curvature in the span of 162 mm to 179 mm) and the second lens face has a radius of curvature of at least 100 mm ([0017] teaches: second surface of second lens have a radius of curvature in the span of 407 mm to 450 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Hogberg and provide an apparatus wherein the lens system includes a first lens configured to form an eye-side end of the lens system when the ophthalmic loupe is used and a second lens configured to form an aerial image-side end of the lens system when the ophthalmic loupe is used, wherein the first lens includes a first lens face facing the eye when the ophthalmic loupe is used, wherein the second lens includes a second lens face forming the last lens face in front of the aerial image when the ophthalmic loupe is used, and wherein at least one of the first lens face has a radius of curvature of at least 100 mm and the second lens face has a radius of curvature of at least 100 mm. Doing so would allow for predictable lens curvature for aerial image forming, thereby improving the overall manufacturability and reliability of the optical system.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 4,738,521) in view of Rogers (US 4,934,771) in view of Hogberg et al. (US 2018/0141153), as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Sun (US 2017/0322493).
Regarding claim 9, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 8.
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the first lens face has a radius of curvature of at least 200 mm. Volk and Sun are related because both disclose optical systems.
Sun teaches an apparatus wherein the first lens face has a radius of curvature of at least 200 mm (claim 7 teaches: first through fourth radius of curvature ranges from 200 mm to 2000 mm).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Sun and provide an apparatus wherein the first lens face has a radius of curvature of at least 200 mm. Doing so would allow for predictable lens curvature for aerial image forming, thereby improving the overall manufacturability and reliability of the optical system.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 4,738,521) in view of Rogers (US 4,934,771), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Kao et al. (US 2022/0387127).
Regarding claim 10, the modified Volk discloses the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1.
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the ophthalmic loupe has a refractive power of at least 90 diopters. Volk and Kao are related because both disclose optical systems.
Kao teaches disclose an apparatus wherein the ophthalmic loupe has a refractive power of at least 90 diopters ([0212] teaches: adjustable lens with refractive power of at least 90 diopters).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Kao and provide an apparatus wherein the ophthalmic loupe has a refractive power of at least 90 diopters. Doing so would allow for predictable selection of optical power to achieve a desired magnification and working distance in a compact design, thereby improving the overall performance and manufacturing of the optical system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 4,738,521) in view of Rogers (US 4,934,771), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Freeman et al. (US 2021/0315662).
Regarding claim 14, the modified Volk discloses the lens combination comprising: an ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1, wherein the loupe which faces the eye (Figure 2 depicts: loupe facing the eye) and which is configured to generate an aerial image (in at least abstract discloses: image forming lens which forms an aerial image of the fundus of the eye).
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus with a lens combination to be arranged between a main objective of a surgical microscope and an eye, an intermediate image plane; and an optical group which faces the main objective, which includes at least one lens, wherein the optical group is configured to at least one of (1) displace a focal point of the main objective into the intermediate image plane and (2) compensate for chromatic aberrations of the ophthalmic loupe. Volk and Freeman are related because both disclose optical systems.
Freeman teaches an apparatus with a lens ([0017] teaches: one or more lenses) combination to be arranged between a main objective of a surgical microscope and an eye (in at least title teaches: surgery visualization), an intermediate image plane ([0074] teaches: intermediate image); and an optical group which faces the main objective (Figure 7 depicts: optical group facing main objective; Examiner notes that the group is considered facing because it transmits an image to the main objective), which includes at least one lens ([0017] teaches: one or more lenses), wherein the optical group is configured to at least one of (1) displace a focal point of the main objective into the intermediate image plane and (2) compensate for chromatic aberrations of the ophthalmic loupe ([0085] teaches: optical engine providing an no-chromatic distortion; Examiner notes that this is considered to be done in conjunction with the lenses of Freeman).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Freeman and provide an apparatus with a lens combination to be arranged between a main objective of a surgical microscope and an eye, an intermediate image plane; and an optical group which faces the main objective, which includes at least one lens, wherein the optical group is configured to at least one of (1) displace a focal point of the main objective into the intermediate image plane and (2) compensate for chromatic aberrations of the ophthalmic loupe. Doing so would allow for improved light control, and chromatic aberrations compensation, thereby improving the overall quality and functionality of the optical system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 4,738,521) in view of Rogers (US 4,934,771), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Schirmer (US 4,307,944).
Regarding claim 15, the modified Volk discloses an optical imaging system comprising: and the ophthalmic loupe according to claim 1.
Volk fails to disclose a system comprising a surgical microscope with an observation beam path and a focal point of the observation beam path; and an ophthalmic loupe which is introducible into the observation beam path of the surgical microscope such that the aerial image of the ophthalmic loupe is located at the focal point of the observation beam path. Volk and Schirmer are related because both disclose optical systems.
Schirmer teaches a system comprising a surgical microscope (in at least title teaches: microscope; Col. 1, line 9 teaches: fundus examination for surgery) with an observation beam path (Col. 1, lines 32-25 teach: slit-beam illumination; therefore considered to have an observation beam path) and a focal point of the observation beam path (Col. 1, lines 50-52 teach: focal point of the field lens); and an ophthalmic loupe which is introducible into the observation beam path of the surgical microscope (Col. 1, lines 50-52 teach: apparatus including a field lens; therefore considered to be analogous to an ophthalmic loupe) such that the aerial image of the ophthalmic loupe is located at the focal point of the observation beam path (Col. 3, lines 50-55 teach: 30, reticle, coincides with the plane of the image to be viewed; Col. 3, lines 45-50 teach: aerial image is viewed by the observer; therefore considered located at the aerial image of the loupe at the focal point of the observation beam path).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Schirmer and provide a system comprising a surgical microscope with an observation beam path and a focal point of the observation beam path; and an ophthalmic loupe which is introducible into the observation beam path of the surgical microscope such that the aerial image of the ophthalmic loupe is located at the focal point of the observation beam path. Doing so would allow for predictable alignment of the aerial image with the focal plane, thereby improving image clarity, ease of integration, and overall usability of the optical imaging system.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Volk (US 4,738,521) in view of Rogers (US 4,934,771) in view of Schirmer (US 4,307,944), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Freeman et al. (US 2021/0315662).
Regarding claim 16, the modified Volk discloses the optical imaging system according to claim 15, which is configured to generate an aerial image of a portion of the eye (in at least abstract discloses: image forming lens which forms an aerial image of the fundus of the eye), the ophthalmic loupe which faces the eye (Figure 2 depicts: ophthalmic loupe facing the eye).
Volk fails to disclose an apparatus wherein the ophthalmic loupe is a part of a lens combination which is introducible into the observation beam path of the surgical microscope, and wherein the lens combination includes: the ophthalmic loupe which faces the eye and which is configured to generate an aerial image of a portion of the eye in an intermediate image plane; and an optical group which faces the main objective, which includes at least one lens, wherein the optical group is configured to at least one of (1) displace a focal point of the main objective into the intermediate image plane and (2) compensate for chromatic aberrations of the ophthalmic loupe. Volk and Freeman are related because both disclose optical systems.
Freeman teaches an apparatus wherein the ophthalmic loupe is a part of a lens combination ([0017] teaches: one or more lenses; analogous to the ophthalmic loupe) includes: the ophthalmic loupe which is configured to generate an intermediate image plane ([0074] teaches: intermediate image); and an optical group which faces the main objective (Figure 7 depicts: optical group facing main objective; Examiner notes that the group is considered facing because it transmits an image to the main objective), which includes at least one lens ([0017] teaches: one or more lenses), wherein the optical group is configured to at least one of (1) displace a focal point of the main objective into the intermediate image plane and (2) compensate for chromatic aberrations of the ophthalmic loupe ([0085] teaches: optical engine providing an no-chromatic distortion; Examiner notes that this is considered to be done in conjunction with the lenses of Freeman).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Volk to incorporate the teachings of Freeman and provide an apparatus wherein the ophthalmic loupe is a part of a lens combination which is introducible into the observation beam path of the surgical microscope, and wherein the lens combination includes: the ophthalmic loupe which faces the eye and which is configured to generate an aerial image of a portion of the eye in an intermediate image plane; and an optical group which faces the main objective, which includes at least one lens, wherein the optical group is configured to at least one of (1) displace a focal point of the main objective into the intermediate image plane and (2) compensate for chromatic aberrations of the ophthalmic loupe. Doing so would allow for improved light control, and chromatic aberrations compensation, thereby improving the overall quality and functionality of the optical system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Farberov (US 2019/0076019), Gohman et al. (US 7,786,715) and Caldwell et al. (US 2006/0227415) all disclose relevant optical systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Sipes whose telephone number is (703)756-1372. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6:00 - 11:00 and 1:00 - 6:00.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/J.C.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872