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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are: “the member system of the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health of the present invention is a data and record center in which the eye axial length, the follow-up consulting and the activity of the patients including, but not limiting to, the data of the eye axial length, the data of follow-up consulting and activity”, "a model of patient changes and consuming footprints".
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 10-12, and 14-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 3 “the record” should be “a record”.
Claim 10, line 3 “the data of the measured eye axial length” should be “the data of the eye axial length”.
Claim 10, line 3 “the record of the eye axial length changes” should be “a record of the eye axial length changes”.
Claim 10, line 3-4 “the data of follow-up consulting and activity” should be “data of follow-up consulting and activity” or similar.
Claim 11, line 3 “the measurement of eye axial length” should be “measurement of eye axial length”.
Claim 11, line 3-4 “the customization of eyeglasses or contact lenses” should be “customization of eyeglasses or contact lenses”.
Claim 12, line 1 “The eye health monitoring and activity matching system” should be amended to “The monitoring and activity matching system for eye health” for consistency with the rest of the claims.
Claim 12 recites multiple sentences. Per MPEP 608.01(m), “Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995)”. Should the claim be amended to recite a single sentence including the same limitations, “the information” of line 3 should be “information”.
Claim 14, line 3 “the data of the measured eye axial length” should be “the data of the eye axial length”.
Claim 14, line 4 “the record of the eye axial length changes” should be “a record of the eye axial length changes”.
Claim 14, line 4 “the data of follow-up consulting and activity” should be “data of follow-up consulting and activity” or similar.
Claim 15, line 1 “The eye health monitoring and activity matching system” should be amended to “The monitoring and activity matching system for eye health” for consistency with the rest of the claims.
Claim 15 recites multiple sentences. Per MPEP 608.01(m), “Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations. See Fressola v. Manbeck, 36 USPQ2d 1211 (D.D.C. 1995)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: eye axial length detecting module in claims 1-3 and 15; member system in claims 1, 4, 8, 10; follow-up consulting and activity matching system in claim 1, 5-8, and 14; eye axial length detecting technology in claim 2; service calibration mechanism in claim 9; footprint grading system in claim 9; eye health bank mechanism in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Accordingly, the limitations are interpreted as follows:
Eye axial length detecting module is interpreted according to paragraphs 0032-0033 and element 200 of Fig. 1.
Member system is interpreted according to paragraph 0034 and element 300 of Fig. 1.
Follow-up consulting and activity matching system is interpreted according to paragraph 0038 and element 400 of Fig. 1.
Eye axial length detecting technology is interpreted according to paragraph 0032-0033 as relating to technology for obtaining the data of the eye axial length of a patient in a non-contact manner such as through an eye axial length detecting instrument such as a non-contact type optical eye axial length measuring instrument.
Eye health bank mechanism is interpreted according to paragraph 0040 as being established via healthy behavior award points.
Service calibrating mechanism and footprint grading system are not provided in the specification with any further corresponding structure.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 2-15 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.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 3, the phrase “includes, but not limits to” is taken similarly to the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim , the phrase “including, but not limiting to” is taken similarly to the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 4 additionally recites the limitation “the patients” in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation of the claim. The limitation is interpreted as referring to the patient as introduced in claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is additionally indefinite because it is unclear what is being claimed. The claim recites no verb to connect the limitations of “the member system is a data and record center” and “in which the eye axial length, the follow-up consulting and the activity of the patients including, but not limiting to, the data of the eye axial length, the data of follow-up consulting and activity”. At present the claim is interpreted as claiming a data and record center which stores data including eye axial length, the follow-up consulting and the activity of a patient.
Regarding claim , the phrase “including, but not limiting to” is taken similarly to the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim , the phrase “including, but not limiting to” is taken similarly to the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Furthermore, the limitation “customizing a pair of glasses or contact lenses and an operating firm” is unclear; it is not known what it referred to as an operating firm or what it means for this operating firm to be customized in the context of the claim.
Claim 8 recites both “the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 1” and refers to “a member system and a follow-up consulting and activity matching system”. It is not clear if the claimed member system and follow-up consulting and activity matching system are intended to be the same as those of claim 1 or different. The limitation is currently interpreted as referring to the same elements as introduced in claim 1, and it is recommended that the limitation be amended to recite the member system and the follow-up consulting and activity matching system for clarity.
Regarding claim 9, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim limitations “service calibrating mechanism" and "footprint grading system ” in claim 9 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification and claims refer to these limitations only by name and provide no additional description of the structure or means of operation of the limitations. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim , the phrase “including, but not limiting to” is taken similarly to the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Regarding claim , the phrase “services related to eye health…” is taken similarly to "such as" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 12 recites multiple sentences within the same claim. It is not clear whether the second sentence is intended to be part of the claimed invention or if it is merely intended as explanation of the purpose of the claim.
Regarding claim , the phrase “including, but not limiting to” is taken similarly to the phrase "for example" and renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites both “eye health monitoring and activity matching system as claimed in claim 1” and refers to “an eye axial length detecting module”. It is not clear if the claimed eye axial length detecting module is intended to be the same as that of claim 1 or different. The limitation is currently interpreted as referring to the same element as introduced in claim 1, and it is recommended that the limitation be amended to recite the eye axial length detecting module system for clarity.
Claim 15 recites multiple sentences within the same claim. It is not clear whether the additional sentences are intended to be part of the claimed invention or if it is merely intended as explanation of the limitation of the first sentence of the claim.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 10-14 are additionally rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite due to their dependence on claims which have been rejected as indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Utilizing the two step process adopted by the Supreme Court (Alice Corp vs CLS Bank Int'l, US
Supreme Court, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (2014) and the recent 101 guideline Federal Register Vol. 84, No., Jan
2019)), determination of the subject matter eligibility under the 35 U.S.C. 101 is as follows: Specifically, the Step 1 requires claim belongs to one of the four statutory categories (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). If Step 1 is satisfied, then in the first part of Step 2A (Prong One), identification of any judicial recognized exceptions in the claim is made. If any limitation in the claim is identified as judicial recognized exception, then in the second part of Step 2A (Prong Two), determination is made whether the identified judicial exception is being integrated into practical application. If the identified judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, then in Step 2B, the claim is further evaluated to see if the additional elements, individually and in combination provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. If the element and combination of elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial recognized exception itself, then the claim is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. The claim recite(s) "used for allowing the patient to be matched with a follow-up consulting and an activity according to the data of the eye axial length". This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 1 satisfies Step 1, namely the claim is directed to one of the four statutory classes, machine. Following Step 2A Prong one, any judicial exceptions are identified in the claims. In claim 1, the limitations "used for allowing the patient to be matched with a follow-up consulting and an activity according to the data of the eye axial length" are abstract ideas as they are directed to a mental process or method of organizing human activity as it relates to observing data and making a judgment of the best match of responses based on the data. With the identification of an abstract idea, the next phase is to proceed Step 2A, Prong Two, wherewith additional elements and taken as a whole, evaluation occurs of whether the identified abstract idea is integrated into a practical application.
In Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim does not recite any additional elements or evidence that amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception. Besides the abstract idea, the claim recites the additional elements “an eye axial length detecting module, used for detecting data of an eye axial length of a patient; a member system, used for inputting the data of the eye axial length; and a follow-up consulting and activity matching system”. However, these components may be seen as the use of well-understood, routine, or conventional elements to perform a non-mental process in order to gather data for the mental process step, much like the example given in MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)(c), such that these limitations are extra-solution activity and thus do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The data detecting and inputting steps lead to the final limitation of “match[ing]” such that the end result of use of the system is only the generic determined match which may include any generic output, or no output at all. As this determination is not defined as requiring any further action, such as a particular form of prophylaxis or treatment or an improvement to a computer or other technology, the claim limitations constitute mere generation of data, in this case data of an eye axial length, such that the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into any practical application. Regarding “a follow-up consulting and activity matching system”, the limitation amounts to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer, which does not render an abstract idea eligible. The steps performed by the follow-up consulting and activity matching system are, as claimed, capable of being performed in the human mind similar to the examples given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)-(C), wherein it is described that “a claim to ‘collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis’ where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind” recites a mental process and that claims which merely use a computer as a tool to perform a mental process are not eligible when “there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper” such as “mental processes of parsing and comparing data” when the steps are recited at a high level of generality and a computer is used merely as a tool to perform the processes. Furthermore, while the abstract idea itself may be an improvement over the existing technology, per Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir., 2016) the inventive concept of step 2 of the Alice/Mayo analysis cannot be supplied by the abstract idea. The inventive concept necessary at step two of the Mayo/Alice analysis cannot be furnished by the unpatentable abstract idea itself. That is, under the Mayo/Alice framework, a claim directed to a newly discovered abstract idea cannot rely on the novelty of that discovery for the inventive concept necessary for patent eligibility; instead, the application must provide something inventive, beyond mere “well-understood, routine, conventional activity.” Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; see also Myriad, 133 S. Ct. at 2117; Ariosa, 788 F.3d at 1379. For this reason, “allowing the patient to be matched with a follow-up consulting and an activity according to the data of the eye axial length” may not be seen as an improvement which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, the next step is Step 2B, evaluating whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim elements are recited with a high level of generality (as written, each claimed step performed by the system may be performed by a person in an undefined manner) that there are no meaningful limitations to the abstract idea. Consequently, with the identified abstract idea not being integrated into a practical application, the next step is Step 2B, evaluating whether the additional elements provide "inventive concept" that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “an eye axial length detecting module, used for detecting data of an eye axial length of a patient; a member system, used for inputting the data of the eye axial length; and a follow-up consulting and activity matching system” constitutes extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, which does not amount to an inventive concept when the activity is well-understood, routine, or conventional, and are thus not indicative of integration into a practical application. The claim limitation constitutes adding a generic eye measuring instrument, database, and processing unit, which Kellner (US 20230181032 A1) describes as well-understood, routine, or conventional in its description of typical eye measurement configurations (Paragraph 0033-0037), data storage including databases and lookup tables (Paragraph 0024-0026, 0036-0038, 0051, 0068, 0071-0072, 0075), processing units including software and application programs (Paragraph 0030-0031, 0075) and commercially available vision screening devices incorporating these elements (Paragraph 0020, 0023). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the present elements amount to no more than mere indications to apply the exception.
In Summary, claim 1 recites abstract idea without being integrated into a practical application, and does not provide additional elements that would amount to significantly more. As such, taken as a whole, the claim and is ineligible under the 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception, in this case an abstract idea, without significantly more. As each of these claims depends from claim 1, which was rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in paragraph 29 of this action, these claims must be evaluated on whether they sufficiently add to the practical application of claim 1, or comprise significantly more than the limitations of claim 1.
Besides the abstract idea of claim 1, claims 2-4 describe further limitations of the well-understood, routine, or conventional elements which are additionally well-understood, routine, or conventional as described by Kellner according to the citations above; claims 5-14 appear to recite additional limitations which constitute abstract ideas as they relate to concepts which may be performed in the human mind or organizing human activity, wherein each claim refers to further limitations of matching received data to a response which may be performed in the mind and where some of the responses themselves additionally constitute mental processes or methods of organizing human activity, such as general health and activity monitoring of a patient as claimed in claim 8 and 13 which may be done through mere observation and integrating services as described in claims 9-11 and 14 and utilizing a review to enhance professional services and attitudes of claim 12 which appear to suggest the general organization of human activity to perform multiple activities and to improve human performance. Claim 15 recites further limitations of the well-understood, routine, or conventional elements which are additionally well-understood, routine, or conventional as described by Kellner according to the citations above relating to databases and additionally recites limitations which are abstract ideas as they relate to mental processes or mathematical concepts via the general tracking of changes and conversion of values. The claim element of claim 1 of a monitoring and activity matching system for eye health is recited with a high level of generality (as written, the actions of the system may be carried out by a person alone or with a generic computer in any undefined manner). This limitation provides no practical application, nor does it provide meaningful limitations to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kellner (US 20230181032 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Kellner teaches a monitoring and activity matching system for eye health (Visual acuity screening environment 100), including:
an eye axial length detecting module, used for detecting data of an eye axial length of a patient (Paragraph 0019-0022-- axial length determinations, and/or other determinations may be made by a processor or other controller of the vision screening device 104, such as processing unit 208 described in greater detail below…; paragraph 0033-0037-- the processing unit 206 is configured to instruct the light source(s) 208 and/or camera(s) 210 to capture image(s) of a cornea of a patient. In some examples and as described in greater detail below, the processing unit 206 is configured to generate an expected image of one or more expected locations of radiation returned from the cornea of a patient 112 based on a predetermined pattern of the light source(s) 208. The processing unit 206 is further configured to process and/or analyze images received via the light source(s) 208 and/or camera(s) 210 and determine, based at least partly on the image(s), one or more of refractive error, cornea curvature, axial length for one or more eyes of a patient 112; light sources 208 and cameras 210);
a member system, used for inputting the data of the eye axial length (Paragraph 0021-0022, 0033, 0038-- Server 106, alone or in combination with database 108, determines corresponding vision acuity data based on the refractive error data received from vision screening device 104. In some examples, the server determines cornea curvature, axial length, a prescription of the patient, and/or a recommendation. In this example, the server 106 transmits the corresponding vision acuity data, prescription, and/or recommendation to the processor of the vision screening device 104; database 108 of server 106); and
a follow-up consulting and activity matching system, used for allowing the patient to be matched with a follow-up consulting and an activity according to the data of the eye axial length (Paragraph 0021-0022-0023, 0033, 0038, 0052-0053, 0074, 0082-0083, 0088-0089--the processing unit 206 is further configured to determine and/or generate a prescription for the patient or a recommendation for the patient 112. In some examples, the processing unit 112 is configured to display the prescription and/or recommendation on the first display unit 212. In some examples, the processing unit 206 processes and/or analyzes the image(s) using image processing techniques (e.g., positional analysis, object detection, etc.) and/or machine learning mechanisms…; processing unit 206).
Regarding claim 2, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 1. Kellner additionally teaches wherein the eye axial length detecting module utilizes an eye axial length detecting technology to obtain the data of the eye axial length of the patient with a non-contact manner (Paragraph 0019-0022-- axial length determinations, and/or other determinations may be made by a processor or other controller of the vision screening device 104, such as processing unit 208 described in greater detail below…; paragraph 0033-0037-- the processing unit 206 is configured to instruct the light source(s) 208 and/or camera(s) 210 to capture image(s) of a cornea of a patient. In some examples and as described in greater detail below, the processing unit 206 is configured to generate an expected image of one or more expected locations of radiation returned from the cornea of a patient 112 based on a predetermined pattern of the light source(s) 208. The processing unit 206 is further configured to process and/or analyze images received via the light source(s) 208 and/or camera(s) 210 and determine, based at least partly on the image(s), one or more of refractive error, cornea curvature, axial length for one or more eyes of a patient 112; light sources 208 and cameras 210).
Regarding claim 3, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 1. Kellner additionally teaches wherein the eye axial length detecting module includes at least one eye axial length detecting instrument, and the at least one eye axial length detecting instrument includes, but not limits to, a non-contact type optical eye axial length measuring instrument (Paragraph 0019-0022-- axial length determinations, and/or other determinations may be made by a processor or other controller of the vision screening device 104, such as processing unit 208 described in greater detail below…; paragraph 0033-0037-- the processing unit 206 is configured to instruct the light source(s) 208 and/or camera(s) 210 to capture image(s) of a cornea of a patient. In some examples and as described in greater detail below, the processing unit 206 is configured to generate an expected image of one or more expected locations of radiation returned from the cornea of a patient 112 based on a predetermined pattern of the light source(s) 208. The processing unit 206 is further configured to process and/or analyze images received via the light source(s) 208 and/or camera(s) 210 and determine, based at least partly on the image(s), one or more of refractive error, cornea curvature, axial length for one or more eyes of a patient 112; light sources 208 and cameras 210).
Regarding claim 4, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 1. Kellner additionally teaches wherein the member system is a data and record center in which the eye axial length, the follow-up consulting and the activity of the patients including, but not limiting to, the data of the eye axial length, the data of follow-up consulting and activity (Paragraph 0021-0025, 0033, 0038, 0062, 0091-- processor of the vision screening device 104 may transmit refractive error testing results to the server 106 via network 110… the processor of the vision screening device 112 uses the vision acuity data to determine one or more of cornea curvature, axial length, a prescription of the patient, and/or a recommendation for the patient 112… Database 108 comprises one or more database systems accessible by server 106 storing different types of information. In some examples, database 108 stores correlations and algorithms used to determine vision acuity data based on refractive error testing. In some examples, database 108 stores clinical data associated with one or more patient(s) 112…).
Regarding claim 5, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 1. Kellner additionally teaches wherein the follow-up consulting and activity matching system is used to integrate including, but not limiting to, the matching of the health activity and the matching of a hospital for follow-up consulting (Paragraph 0021-0025, 0033, 0038, 0062, 0091-- the server 106 transmits the corresponding vision acuity data, prescription, and/or recommendation to the processor of the vision screening device 104. The processor of the vision screening device 104 uses the corresponding acuity data to provide a vision screening test for the patient 112… In some examples, the recommendations may indicate whether the patient 112 should follow up with an eye doctor…).
Regarding claim 6, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 5. Kellner additionally teaches wherein the follow-up consulting and activity matching system is used for providing operations of booking the matched follow-up consulting or activity and the record of finished activity, or providing the patient with an advanced service requirement for eye health of the patient (Paragraph 0021-0025, 0033, 0038, 0062, 0091-- the recommendations may indicate whether the patient 112 should follow up with an eye doctor… the device and systems described herein enable the vision screening device to perform operations previously unavailable to patients via a portable device. This may streamline workflow for providing prescriptions, follow-up recommendations, and/or referrals for primary care physicians…). The device may be utilized to match a patient to a recommendation such as additional testing, prescriptions, follow-ups with a physician or referrals to physicians based on the results of testing such that it may be seen to provide operations of booking the matched follow-up consulting or activity and the record of finished activity, or providing the patient with an advanced service requirement for eye health of the patient.
Regarding claim 7, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 5. Kellner additionally teaches wherein the follow-up consulting and activity matching system is used for matching an activity including, but not limiting to, customizing a pair of glasses or contact lenses and an operating firm, and matching a person including, but not limiting to, a doctor, an optometrist, a patient who needs an optometry test, a firm, or a glasses shop and a health resource (Paragraph 0022, 0033, 0052, 0063-0064, 0082-- a prescription of the patient… the prescription may comprise a prescription for contact lenses…; Paragraph 0062, 0091-- the device and systems described herein enable the vision screening device to perform operations previously unavailable to patients via a portable device. This may streamline workflow for providing prescriptions, follow-up recommendations, and/or referrals for primary care physicians).
Regarding claim 8, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 1. Kellner additionally teaches the eye health monitoring and activity matching system includes a member system (database 108 of server 106) and a follow-up consulting and activity matching system (processing unit 206) capable of conducting a comprehensive health monitoring of a patient and implementing practical applications through a dedicated application program (Paragraph 0021-0023, 0030-0031, 0033, 0038, 0052-0053, 0074-0075, 0082-0083, 0088-0089, 0091--the processing unit 206 is further configured to determine and/or generate a prescription for the patient or a recommendation for the patient 112. In some examples, the processing unit 112 is configured to display the prescription and/or recommendation on the first display unit 212. In some examples, the processing unit 206 processes and/or analyzes the image(s) using image processing techniques (e.g., positional analysis, object detection, etc.) and/or machine learning mechanisms… Additionally, by enabling a portable and/or handheld vision screening device to perform the improved cornea curvature determination and the axial length determinations, the device and systems described herein enable the vision screening device to perform operations previously unavailable to patients via a portable device. This may streamline workflow for providing prescriptions, follow-up recommendations, and/or referrals for primary care physicians and others, thereby reduce the cost of treatments). It is additionally noted that as the practical applications may be implemented through various programs and similar which perform particular functions and implement particular data types, the system may be seen to utilize a dedicated application program for the purpose as claimed (see paragraph 0030-0031, 0075).
Regarding claim 9, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 8. Kellner additionally teaches the application program comprises features such as an eye health bank application, integration of online eye health services, an eye axial length measuring instrument with service calibration mechanism, a footprint grading system, and the establishment of an eye health medical big data repository (Paragraph 0021-0023, 0030-0031, 0033, 0038, 0052-0053, 0074-0075, 0082-0083, 0088-0089, 0091--the processing unit 206 is further configured to determine and/or generate a prescription for the patient or a recommendation for the patient 112. In some examples, the processing unit 112 is configured to display the prescription and/or recommendation on the first display unit 212. In some examples, the processing unit 206 processes and/or analyzes the image(s) using image processing techniques (e.g., positional analysis, object detection, etc.) and/or machine learning mechanisms… Additionally, by enabling a portable and/or handheld vision screening device to perform the improved cornea curvature determination and the axial length determinations, the device and systems described herein enable the vision screening device to perform operations previously unavailable to patients via a portable device. This may streamline workflow for providing prescriptions, follow-up recommendations, and/or referrals for primary care physicians and others, thereby reduce the cost of treatments).
Regarding claim 11, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 9. Kellner additionally teaches further specifies that the eye health online service integration encompasses services related to eye health, including the measurement of eye axial length, optometry services, and the customization of eyeglasses or contact lenses (Paragraph 0021-0023, 0030-0031, 0033, 0038, 0052-0053, 0074-0075, 0082-0083, 0088-0089, 0091--the processing unit 206 is further configured to determine and/or generate a prescription for the patient or a recommendation for the patient 112. In some examples, the processing unit 112 is configured to display the prescription and/or recommendation on the first display unit 212. In some examples, the processing unit 206 processes and/or analyzes the image(s) using image processing techniques (e.g., positional analysis, object detection, etc.) and/or machine learning mechanisms… Additionally, by enabling a portable and/or handheld vision screening device to perform the improved cornea curvature determination and the axial length determinations, the device and systems described herein enable the vision screening device to perform operations previously unavailable to patients via a portable device. This may streamline workflow for providing prescriptions, follow-up recommendations, and/or referrals for primary care physicians and others, thereby reduce the cost of treatments). Specifically, Kellner discloses that the system may integrate services such as measuring eye axial length, determining a prescription, and generally connecting a user to eye health services such as follow-up services and referrals.
Regarding claim 14, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 9. Kellner additionally teaches wherein the eye health medical big data establishment is able to use the follow-up consulting and activity matching system to integrate data including, but not limiting to, the data of the measured eye axial length, the record of the eye axial length changes, the data of follow-up consulting and activity of all patients to establish a model of patient changes and consuming footprints so as to establish an eye health medical bigdata for whole human beings (Paragraph 0003-0004—“Normal” visual acuity…a person without “normal” vision may require various additional tests and/or measurements…; Paragraph 0034, 0052-0054, 0073, 0087--Machine-learning mechanisms include, but are not limited to supervised learning algorithms (e.g., artificial neural networks, Bayesian statistics, support vector machines, decision trees, classifiers, k-nearest neighbor, etc.), unsupervised learning algorithms (e.g., artificial neural networks, association rule learning, hierarchical clustering, cluster analysis, etc.), semi-supervised learning algorithms, deep learning algorithms, etc.), statistical models, etc.... other characteristics (e.g., age, ethnicity, etc.) of the patient 112 are used to determine axial length…; Paragraph 0021-0023, 0030-0031, 0033, 0038, 0052-0053, 0074-0075, 0082-0083, 0088-0089, 0091--Server 106, alone or in combination with database 108, determines corresponding vision acuity data based on the refractive error data received from vision screening device 104. In some examples, the server determines cornea curvature, axial length, a prescription of the patient, and/or a recommendation…). Specifically, Kellner discloses that a patient may be identified as having normal vision acuity or abnormal vision acuity based on comparison of measured axial length, corneal characteristics, and other characteristics such as age and ethnicity which are part of a database and where the comparison may be performed using statistical modeling.
Regarding claim 15, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 9. Kellner additionally teaches includes an eye axial length detecting module that incorporates a database for converting the measured eye axial length. This database is designed to align the measured eye axial length with established levels of normal eye health corresponding to the developmental progression of the eye in children of varying ages. The eye axial length data obtained through the detection and measurement process of the module is analyzed to identify different eye axial length values, which are then converted based on myopia dioptors obtained after cycloplegic method. This conversion process establishes a standard for comparison, enabling the tracking of changes in eye axial length values against the converted data stored in the database. Moreover, the accuracy of the database in relation to converted eye axial length measurements corresponding to myopia dioptors can be enhanced through continuous accumulation and refinement of data. (Paragraph 0003-0004—“Normal” visual acuity…a person without “normal” vision may require various additional tests and/or measurements…; Paragraph 0034, 0052-0054, 0072-0073, 0087--Machine-learning mechanisms include, but are not limited to supervised learning algorithms (e.g., artificial neural networks, Bayesian statistics, support vector machines, decision trees, classifiers, k-nearest neighbor, etc.), unsupervised learning algorithms (e.g., artificial neural networks, association rule learning, hierarchical clustering, cluster analysis, etc.), semi-supervised learning algorithms, deep learning algorithms, etc.), statistical models, etc.... axial length of the eye 400 is determined using an improved formula aimed at minimizing error for each patient 112. For instance, the vision screening device axial length for one or both eyes of each patient 112 may be determined using the improved formula. In some examples, one or more algorithms, data plots, graphs, lookup tables including empirical data, neural networks, and/or other items may be utilized by the vision screening device 104 to determine the axial length… AL.sub.DA may be determined with a higher accuracy based on additional characteristics associated with the patient (e.g., patient age, patient ethnicity, etc.)…; Paragraph 0021-0023, 0030-0031, 0033, 0038, 0052-0053, 0074-0075, 0082-0083, 0088-0089, 0091--Server 106, alone or in combination with database 108, determines corresponding vision acuity data based on the refractive error data received from vision screening device 104. In some examples, the server determines cornea curvature, axial length, a prescription of the patient, and/or a recommendation…). Specifically, Kellner discloses that a patient may be identified as having normal vision acuity or abnormal vision acuity based on comparison of measured axial length, corneal characteristics, and other characteristics such as age and ethnicity which are part of a database and where the comparison may be performed using statistical modeling.
Specifically, Kellner additionally teaches includes an eye axial length detecting module that incorporates a database for converting the measured eye axial length to a calibrated or corrected eye axial length where the database is designed to improve the accuracy of the determined eye axial length by accounting for additional characteristics such as patient age.
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.
Claim(s) 10 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner in view of Coyle (US 20210219874 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 9. Kellner does not explicitly disclose the conversion of values into a healthy behavior award point applicable to an eye health bank application, and an eye health bank mechanism is established through the healthy behavior award points.
Coyle, in analogous art of a system for monitoring a user and providing recommendations to the user in response (Paragraph 0002), discloses a healthy behavior award point applicable to a health bank application, and a health bank mechanism is established through the healthy behavior award points (Paragraph 0018, 0084-- the user may receive points and/or rewards based on a level of user's participation in the health and wellness program to encourage participation in the health and wellness program).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Kellner to additionally include a health bank mechanism based in healthy behavior points as disclosed by Coyle in order to encourage a patient to follow through on recommendations of the system, such as obtaining contact lenses or glasses with a proper prescription or following up with a medical provider.
Regarding claim 13, Kellner teaches the monitoring and activity matching system for eye health as claimed in claim 9. However, Kellner does not explicitly disclose wherein the application program is used to obtain an activity footprint of a patient for establishing publicity for activity sharing and review.
Coyle, in analogous art of a system for monitoring a user and providing recommendations to the user in response (Paragraph 0002), discloses wherein the application program is used to obtain an activity footprint of a patient for establishing publicity for activity sharing and review (Paragraph 0048-0049-- the health engine 114 identifies the user 102 based on the login credentials… based on the login credentials may include determining that the user 102 has a health profile 116 associated with the health engine; paragraph 0012-0018, 0061-0064-- a health profile for the user is generated, which includes the health data, the first health goal, and the second health goal… the health profile 116 may include a today module 168. The today module 168 may include a questionnaire… the user 102 may select a specific number (e.g., between 1-20), a quantity of an object (e.g., 4/5 stars), etc).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Kellner to include the activity footprint of Coyle in order to predictably improve the system by allowing a user’s actions, results, and recommendations to be tied to their identity to allow them to be tracked and referred back to and additionally to allow the user to share results and opinions with other users to encourage broader use of the system.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kellner in view of Samec (US 20160270656 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kellner generally discloses calibration of measurements and configuring the system to be within proper operating ranges (Paragraph 0022, 0044, 0046, 0048, 0073). However, Kellner does not explicitly disclose incorporates an eye axial length measuring instrument and service calibrating mechanism that utilizes an objective service review to enhance professional service skills and attitudes. The information gathered from the objective service review is utilized to develop educational programs and conduct calibration sessions at scheduled intervals for the eye axial length measuring instrument.
Samec, in analogous art of a health system for providing patient monitoring and recommendations including based on eye health (Abstract), discloses incorporates an eye axial length measuring instrument and service calibrating mechanism that utilizes an objective service review to enhance professional service skills and attitudes. The information gathered from the objective service review is utilized to develop educational programs and conduct calibration sessions at scheduled intervals for the eye axial length measuring instrument (Paragraph 1439, 1476, 1722-- optical prescription may be determined during initialization of the ophthalmic system, calibration of the system, as part of an eye-prescription configurator program…). Specifically, Samec teaches an eye screening device may be calibrated before each user, such that it is reviewed and a calibration session is conducted for the measuring instruments at scheduled intervals.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the system of Kellner to include the service review as described by Samec in order to predictably improve the system by maintaining the calibration of the measurement instruments through ongoing calibration sessions thus ensuring accurate measurements and relevant recommendations are provided to users.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNA ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-7912. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-4:30 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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/ANNA ROBERTS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights