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 .
DETAILED ACTIONExaminer Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 16-20) in the reply filed on 05/08/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 1-15 are withdrawn from further consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on PRO 63/459,116 dated 04/13/2023.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baily (WO 2021133402 A1) and further in view of Fletcher (US 11129532 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Baily teaches, in Fig. 1, 2A, and 2B: a system comprised of:
an apparatus (“apparatus 100”; [0030], Fig. 2A),
said apparatus comprised of:
an image capture device (“sensor 102”; [0030], Fig. 2A);
a memory (“the apparatus 100 executing computer-readable instructions stored in the memory 108”; [0030], Fig. 1);
a network interface (“the sensor 102 is in direct communication with a computing device 110 through, for example, a network (wired (including fiber optic)”; [0027]); and
a processor in communication with the memory, the image capture device, and the network interface (“The processor 104 is in communication with the sensor 102 and the memory 108”; [0029], Fig. 1), wherein the processor (104) executes computer-readable instructions stored in the memory (“processor 104 can execute computer-readable instructions stored on the memory 108”; [0029], Fig. 1) that cause the processor (104) to:
…
capture, using the image capture device, an image of an eye of a subject (“an image of the eye 106 as captured by the sensor 102”; [0030], Fig. 2A), wherein non-relevant reflections from the eye of the subject are managed while capturing the image (“the apparatus 100 or the sensor 102 can manage non-relevant reflections from a cornea and a lens of the eye 106 of the subject while capturing the image 208”; [0036], Fig. 2A and 2B);
pre-process the captured image of the eye of the subject (“images captured by the sensor 102, whether still images or video, can be stored in the memory 108 and processed by the processor 104”; [0028]); and
transmit, using the network interface (“the sensor 102 is in direct communication with a computing device 110 through, for example, a network (wired (including fiber optic)”; [0027]), the pre-processed captured image of the eye of the subject to a computing device (“image can be downloaded or transferred to the computing device 110”; [0072]), wherein a processor of the computing device executes computer-readable instructions stored in a memory of the computing device that cause the processor of the computing device to (“processor 104 can execute computer-readable instructions stored on the memory 108”; [0029], Fig. 1):
detect, from the pre-processed image of the eye of the subject, light reflected out of the eye of a subject from a retina of the eye of the subject (“The processor 104 can further execute computer-readable instructions stored on the memory 108 to detect ambient light reflected out of the eye 106 of the subject from the retina of the eye 106 of the subject”; [0030]); and
make a determination about the eye of the subject based upon the detected reflected light (“ambient light reflected out of the eye 106 of the subject from the retina of the eye 106 of the subject and the determination about the eye 106 of the subject based upon the detected reflected ambient light is detected from the image of the eye 106 of the subject”; [0030]).
However, Baily fails to explicitly teach that the processor is configured to assist in aligning an eye of a subject with the image capture device.
In a related invention in the field of ophthalmic examination devices Fletcher teaches in Fig. 6: the processor is configured to assist in aligning an eye of a subject with the image capture device (“imaging device programming utilizes information from any of a gyroscope, accelerometers, compass and/or similar motion/pose/positioning sensor to provide image orientation information to assist in software-mediated alignment”; col 26 lines 65-67 to col 27 lines 1-2, “imaging device programming may control autofocus”; col 3 line 51).
Furthermore, Fletcher teaches this configuration such that “imaging system programming recognizes retinal structures and employs automated repositioning of the fixation target image adjacent regions of the retina” (Fletcher, col 3 lines 35-38).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baily to incorporate the teachings of Fletcher to provide a device in which the processor is configured to assist in aligning an eye of a subject with the image capture device, for the purpose of recognizing retinal structures and employs automated repositioning (Fletcher, col 3 lines 35-38).
Regarding claim 17, Baily and Fletcher teach the system of claim 16. Baily further teaches: wherein the processor (104) of the computing device (110) executing computer-readable instructions stored in the memory of the computing device (“processor 104 can execute computer-readable instructions stored on the memory 108”; [0029], Fig. 1) that cause the processor of the computing device to detect light reflected out of an eye of a subject from a retina of the eye of the subject further comprises the processor of the computing device executing computer-readable instructions stored in the memory of the computing device that cause the processor of the computing device to (“The processor 104 can further execute computer-readable instructions stored on the memory 108 to detect ambient light reflected out of the eye 106 of the subject from the retina of the eye 106 of the subject”; [0030]):
determine an overall intensity of light from a plurality of pixels located within the at least a portion of a pupil captured in the pre-processed image (“The processor 104 of the apparatus 100 can execute computer-readable instructions stored in the memory 108 that cause the processor 104 to detect, from the image 208 of the eye, ambient light 202 reflected 204 out of an eye 106 of the subject from the retina 206 of the eye 106 of the subject and determine the overall intensity of the plurality of pixels”; [0031]);
determine a first intensity of a first color from the plurality of pixels located within the at least a portion of a pupil of the eye of the subject captured in the pre-processed image (“determining, using the computing device, a first intensity of a first color from the plurality of pixels located within at least a portion of a pupil of the eye of the subject captured in the image”; [0056]);
determine a second intensity of a second color from the plurality of pixels located within the at least a portion of the pupil of the eye of the subject captured in the pre-processed image (“determining, using the computing device, a second intensity of a second color from the plurality of pixels located within the at least a portion of the pupil of the eye of the subject captured in the image”; [0056]); and
determine using a relative intensity of the first color and a relative intensity of the second color and the overall intensity the determination about the eye of the subject based upon the reflected light (“and comparing, by the computing device, a relative intensity of the first color and a relative intensity of the second color, wherein the comparison and the overall intensity are used to make the determination about the eye of the subject based upon the reflected ambient light”; [0056]).
Regarding claim 18, Baily and Fletcher teach the system of claim 16. Baily further teaches: wherein the image capture device comprises a smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera (“the sensor 102 may comprise at least a portion of a smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera and the surface 218 can be at least a portion of a case that houses the smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera”; [0037]).
Regarding claim 19, Baily and Fletcher teach the system of claim 18. Baily further teaches: wherein the eye is aligned with the image capture device using a software application executing on the smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera (“One or more programs may implement or utilize the processes described in connection with the presently disclosed subject matter, e.g., through the use of an application programming interface (API), reusable controls, or the like. Such programs may be implemented in a high level procedural or object-oriented programming language to communicate with a computer system. However, the program(s) can be implemented in assembly or machine language, if desired. In any case, the language may be a compiled or interpreted language and it may be combined with hardware implementations”; [0054], “the sensor 102 may comprise at least a portion of a smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera and the surface 218 can be at least a portion of a case that houses the smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera”; [0037], “When the logical operations described herein are implemented in software, the process may execute on any type of computing architecture or platform”; [0047]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baily (WO 2021133402 A1) and Fletcher (US 11129532 B2) as applied to claim 19 above, and further in view of Devani (US 12551097 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Baily and Fletcher teach the system of claim 19. Baily does not explicitly teach: wherein the software application executing on the smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera provides visual and/or audible indicators through peripherals of the smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera to align the eye with the image capture device.
However, in a related invention in the field of pupillary response tracking, Devani teaches: wherein the software application executing on the smart phone (“the hardware device is a smartphone”; col 4 lines 20-21) or other mobile computing device having a camera provides visual and/or audible indicators through peripherals of the smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera to align the eye with the image capture device (“In some examples, the instructions to the user will be a text based indication on the display with a message. In other examples, the system will provide the user with audio instructions to close their eyes. In other examples, the system will provide the user with another visual indication that is not a text based message”; col; 3 lines 14-19).
Furthermore, Devani teaches this configuration such that “the back facing camera may be utilized and the feedback to the user may be purely audio or vibrational to inform them when to open and close their eyes, and when their eyes are properly aligned with the back facing camera” (Devani, col 20 lines 42-45).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Baily and Fletcher to incorporate the teachings of Devani to provide a device in which the software application executing on the smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera provides visual and/or audible indicators through peripherals of the smart phone or other mobile computing device having a camera to align the eye with the image capture device, for the purpose of utilizing the features of the smartphone to align the user with the camera (Devani, col 20 lines 42-45).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20220304572 A1: a system and method for an eye test application for mobile devices and in particular to applications for self-determination of eyeglass prescription via mobile computing devices comprising Simultaneous Split Point Focus (SSPF) and Low Latency Dynamic Distance Monitoring (LLDDM) for enabling self-determination of eyeglass prescription for a user via a mobile computing device, Fig. 3.
US 20190117064 A1: a portable retinal imaging device for imaging the fundus of the eye. The device includes an ocular imaging device containing ocular lensing and filters, a fixation display, and a light source, and is configured for coupling to a mobile device containing a camera, display, and application programming for controlling retinal imaging, Figs. 6-7.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm EST.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights