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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 06/03/2026 is acknowledged.
Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/03/2026.
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the application filed on 05/17/2024.
Claims 10-16 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention(s), there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/03/2026.
In the reply filed on 06/03/2026, claims 17-20 were added.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claim Rejections – 35 § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, recites in part, “assigning a first disease severity rating” and “assigning a second disease severity rating”. It is unclear how a first disease severity rating and a second disease severity rating is being assigned. Is the first and second disease severity rating being assigned randomly? Is there an algorithm or formula that is being used to assign a first disease severity rating and to assign a second disease severity rating? Claim 1 is therefore found to be indefinite, because the resulting claims does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. All dependent claims, namely claims 2-9 and 17-20 are rejected for at least the same reason.
Claim 5, recites in part, “assigning a third disease severity rating at a third time”. It is unclear how a third disease severity rating is being assigned at a third time. Is third disease severity rating being assigned randomly at a third time? Is there an algorithm or formula that is being used to assign a third disease severity at a third time? Claim 5 is therefore found to be indefinite, because the resulting claims does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. All dependent claims, namely claim 6 is rejected for at least the same reason.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20: Step 1
Claims 1-9 and 17-20 are drawn to a disease prognosis method, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Claims 1-9 and 17-20: Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites gathering a first plurality of patient data at a first time, comparing the first plurality of patient data to a disease data standard, assigning a first disease severity rating, gathering a second plurality of patient data at a second time, comparing the second plurality of patient data to the disease data standard, assigning a second disease severity rating, and generating a first disease progression chart based upon at least the first disease severity rating at the first time and the second disease severity rating at the second time.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, but for the recitation of generic computer components, encompass managing personal behavior by manually following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. But for the recitation of generic computer components, these limitations encompass a user gathering a first plurality of patient data at a first time, comparing the first plurality of patient data to a disease data standard, assigning a first disease severity rating, gathering a second plurality of patient data at a second time, comparing the second plurality of patient data to the disease data standard, assigning a second disease severity rating, and generating a first disease progression chart based upon at least the first disease severity rating at the first time and the second disease severity rating at the second time. These steps could be carried out manually by a user following rules or instructions, which is a subgrouping of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 2-9 and 17-20 incorporate the abstract idea identified above and recite additional limitations that expand on the abstract idea, but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the recitation of generic computer components, Claim 2 further defines the first plurality of patient data. Claims 3 and 20 further define gathering the first plurality of patient data. Claims 4 and 18 further define comparing the first plurality of patient data to the disease data standard. Claim 5 further defines gathering a third plurality of patient data at a third time. Claim 6 further defines updating the first disease progression chart. Claim 7 further defines comparing the first disease progression chart to a second disease progression chart. Claim 8 further defines the abstracted disease progression chart. Claim 9 further defines compiling a plurality of disease progression charts. Claim 17 further defines assigning the first disease severity rating. Claim 19 further defines the first disease severity rating. Therefore, these claims are similarly drawn to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20: Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not appear to recite any hardware for performing the method steps, but rather the method steps can be performed by a person or human being. Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements. As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 “merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer” is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Claims 1-9 and 17-20: Step 2B
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as discussed above with respect to integration into a practical application, the additional elements are recited at a high level of generality, and the written description indicates that these elements are generic computer components. Using generic computer components to perform abstract ideas does not provide a necessary inventive concept. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). As explained above, the generic computer components are at best the equivalent of merely adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception.
Receiving and transmitting data over a network (i.e. receiving and communicating data or signals) has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of a general-purpose computer (see MPEP 2106.05(d) and buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result has also been found to be insufficient to show an improvement to technology, (see MPEP 2106.05(a) and TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48).
Insignificant, extra solution, data gathering activity has been found to not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(g) and Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Therefore, the high-level recitation of an output of results also fails to include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, whether considered alone or in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bosworth et al. (WIPO Patent Application Publication WO 2024/100454 A2).
Claim 1:
Bosworth discloses the following limitations as shown below:
gathering a first plurality of patient data at a first time (see at least Paragraph 349, Study visits occurred at screening (Visit 1, Day -14), baseline (Visit 2, Day 0), Day 14 (Visit 3), Month 1.5 (Visit 4), and Month 3 (Visit 5, primary endpoint). Best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy (including eyelid margin erythema/telangiectasias), sodium fluorescein corneal staining (Oxford scale), lissamine green conjunctival staining (Oxford scale), and meibomian gland evaluation were assessed at all study visits. Meibomian gland evaluations were performed by the same investigator for all visits by a individual. Unanesthetized Schirmer tests were performed at screening, baseline, and Month 3, with intraocular pressure, ophthalmoscopy exam, and meibography assessed at screening and Month 3. The signs of MGD were measured by the number of meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (MGYLS) and MGS scores; the symptoms of MGD were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), and tear break-up time (TBUT));
comparing the first plurality of patient data to a disease data standard (see at least Paragraph 350, The signs of MGD were assessed by the number of open meibomian glands (i.e., MGYLS score) and quality of meibum (i.e., MGS score). The number of MGYLS is based on a technique for meibomian gland expression, where secretion in the lower eyelid of each eye was measured for five consecutive glands in each of three regions (temporal, central, and nasal). Expression was performed using a Meibomian Gland Evaluator on the 15 glands individually, with a binary score of 0 (none observed) or 1 (liquid observed) recorded following expression);
assigning a first disease severity rating (see at least Paragraph 349, The signs of MGD were measured by the number of meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (MGYLS) and MGS scores; the symptoms of MGD were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), and tear break-up time (TBUT); Paragraph 350, The MGYLS is scored from 0-15, where lower scores indicate more severe disease);
gathering a second plurality of patient data at a second time (see at least Paragraph 349, Study visits occurred at screening (Visit 1, Day -14), baseline (Visit 2, Day 0), Day 14 (Visit 3), Month 1.5 (Visit 4), and Month 3 (Visit 5, primary endpoint). Best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy (including eyelid margin erythema/telangiectasias), sodium fluorescein corneal staining (Oxford scale), lissamine green conjunctival staining (Oxford scale), and meibomian gland evaluation were assessed at all study visits. Meibomian gland evaluations were performed by the same investigator for all visits by a individual. Unanesthetized Schirmer tests were performed at screening, baseline, and Month 3, with intraocular pressure, ophthalmoscopy exam, and meibography assessed at screening and Month 3. The signs of MGD were measured by the number of meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (MGYLS) and MGS scores; the symptoms of MGD were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), and tear break-up time (TBUT));
comparing the second plurality of patient data to the disease data standard (see at least Paragraph 350, The signs of MGD were assessed by the number of open meibomian glands (i.e., MGYLS score) and quality of meibum (i.e., MGS score). The number of MGYLS is based on a technique for meibomian gland expression, where secretion in the lower eyelid of each eye was measured for five consecutive glands in each of three regions (temporal, central, and nasal). Expression was performed using a Meibomian Gland Evaluator on the 15 glands individually, with a binary score of 0 (none observed) or 1 (liquid observed) recorded following expression);
assigning a second disease severity rating (see at least Paragraph 349, The signs of MGD were measured by the number of meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (MGYLS) and MGS scores; the symptoms of MGD were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), and tear break-up time (TBUT); Paragraph 350, The MGYLS is scored from 0-15, where lower scores indicate more severe disease); and
generating a first disease progression chart based upon at least the first disease severity rating at the first time and the second disease severity rating at the second time (see at least Paragraph 349, Study visits occurred at screening (Visit 1, Day -14), baseline (Visit 2, Day 0), Day 14 (Visit 3), Month 1.5 (Visit 4), and Month 3 (Visit 5, primary endpoint). Meibomian gland evaluation were assessed at all study visits. … meibography assessed at screening and Month 3).
Claim 2:
Bosworth discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Bosworth further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first plurality of patient data includes data selected from the group consisting of biometric data, physiologic data, image data, video data, survey data, and patient input data (see at least Paragraph 349, Study visits occurred at screening (Visit 1, Day -14), baseline (Visit 2, Day 0), Day 14 (Visit 3), Month 1.5 (Visit 4), and Month 3 (Visit 5, primary endpoint). Best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy (including eyelid margin erythema/telangiectasias), sodium fluorescein corneal staining (Oxford scale), lissamine green conjunctival staining (Oxford scale), and meibomian gland evaluation were assessed at all study visits. Meibomian gland evaluations were performed by the same investigator for all visits by a individual. Unanesthetized Schirmer tests were performed at screening, baseline, and Month 3, with intraocular pressure, ophthalmoscopy exam, and meibography assessed at screening and Month 3. The signs of MGD were measured by the number of meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (MGYLS) and MGS scores; the symptoms of MGD were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), and tear break-up time (TBUT)).
Claim 3:
Bosworth discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Bosworth further discloses the following limitations:
wherein gathering the first plurality of patient data includes gathering data selected from the group consisting of blink rate, tear meniscus height, fluorescein sodium (see at least Bosworth, Paragraph 349, sodium fluorescein corneal staining (Oxford scale)), fluorescein staining (see at least Bosworth, Paragraph 349, sodium fluorescein corneal staining (Oxford scale)), oscular surface disease index, tear break up time (Bosworth, see at least Paragraph 65, evaluating an objective measure for an ocular indication (e.g., as measured by tear break up time (TBUT))), meibography (Bosworth, see at least Paragraph 335, meibography score of 4), Schirmer scores, tear volume, oscular surface staining, meibometry, rose bengal, and tear osmolarity.
Claim 4:
Bosworth discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Bosworth further discloses the following limitations:
wherein comparing the first plurality of patient data to the disease data standard includes comparing a number of dropped meibomian glands to a dropped meibomian gland average (see at least Paragraph 307, In some instances, meibomian gland dysfunction (MGD) is a chronic and progressive condition associated with blockage of the meibomian glands and alteration in meibum quality, which can result in gland atrophy and loss from obstruction-associated back pressure. In some instances, MGD is associated with orifice plugging, duct obstruction and dilatation, gland atrophy and dropout, and qualitative changes in expressed secretions).
Claim 5:
Bosworth discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Bosworth further discloses the following limitations:
further comprising gathering a third plurality of patient data at a third time, (see at least Paragraph 349, Study visits occurred at screening (Visit 1, Day -14), baseline (Visit 2, Day 0), Day 14 (Visit 3), Month 1.5 (Visit 4), and Month 3 (Visit 5, primary endpoint). Best-corrected visual acuity, slit-lamp biomicroscopy (including eyelid margin erythema/telangiectasias), sodium fluorescein corneal staining (Oxford scale), lissamine green conjunctival staining (Oxford scale), and meibomian gland evaluation were assessed at all study visits. Meibomian gland evaluations were performed by the same investigator for all visits by a individual. Unanesthetized Schirmer tests were performed at screening, baseline, and Month 3, with intraocular pressure, ophthalmoscopy exam, and meibography assessed at screening and Month 3. The signs of MGD were measured by the number of meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (MGYLS) and MGS scores; the symptoms of MGD were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), and tear break-up time (TBUT)),
comparing the third plurality of patient data to the disease data standard (see at least Paragraph 350, The signs of MGD were assessed by the number of open meibomian glands (i.e., MGYLS score) and quality of meibum (i.e., MGS score). The number of MGYLS is based on a technique for meibomian gland expression, where secretion in the lower eyelid of each eye was measured for five consecutive glands in each of three regions (temporal, central, and nasal). Expression was performed using a Meibomian Gland Evaluator on the 15 glands individually, with a binary score of 0 (none observed) or 1 (liquid observed) recorded following expression), and
assigning a third disease severity rating at the third time (see at least Paragraph 349, The signs of MGD were measured by the number of meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (MGYLS) and MGS scores; the symptoms of MGD were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), and tear break-up time (TBUT); Paragraph 350, The MGYLS is scored from 0-15, where lower scores indicate more severe disease).
Claim 6:
Bosworth discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Bosworth further discloses the following limitations:
further comprising updating the first disease progression chart with the third disease severity rating at the third time (see at least Paragraph 349, Study visits occurred at screening (Visit 1, Day -14), baseline (Visit 2, Day 0), Day 14 (Visit 3), Month 1.5 (Visit 4), and Month 3 (Visit 5, primary endpoint). Meibomian gland evaluation were assessed at all study visits. … meibography assessed at screening and Month 3; Claim 2, The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the initial objective score is determined before providing a keratolytic agent (e.g., selenium sulfide) to or around the eye of the individual. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the initial objective score is a baseline measurement of the objective measure.).
Claim 7:
Bosworth discloses the limitations as shown in the rejections above. Bosworth further discloses the following limitations:
further comprising comparing the first disease progression chart to a second disease progression chart to create an abstracted disease progression chart (see at least Paragraph 349, Study visits occurred at screening (Visit 1, Day -14), baseline (Visit 2, Day 0), Day 14 (Visit 3), Month 1.5 (Visit 4), and Month 3 (Visit 5, primary endpoint). Meibomian gland evaluation were assessed at all study visits. … meibography assessed at screening and Month 3; Claim 2, The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the initial objective score is determined before providing a keratolytic agent (e.g., selenium sulfide) to or around the eye of the individual. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the initial objective score is a baseline measurement of the objective measure. The method of any one of the preceding claims, wherein improvement in symptom or objective measure is determined by comparing a second score (e.g., the second objective score or the second symptom score) to a baseline measurement).
Claim 19:
Bosworth discloses the limitations shown in the rejection above. Bosworth further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the first disease severity rating comprises a numerical value assigned within a predetermined severity range (see at least Paragraph 349, The signs of MGD were measured by the number of meibomian glands yielding liquid secretion (MGYLS) and MGS scores; the symptoms of MGD were assessed using the Ocular Surface Disease Index (OSDI), Standard Patient Evaluation of Eye Dryness (SPEED), and tear break-up time (TBUT); Paragraph 350, The MGYLS is scored from 0-15, where lower scores indicate more severe disease).
Claim 20:
Bosworth discloses the limitations shown in the rejection above. Bosworth further discloses the following limitations:
wherein gathering the first plurality of patient data comprises capturing image data using an image capture device, wherein the image capture device comprises an actuator for capturing image data (see at least Paragraph 171, In some embodiments, the morphology (or change thereof) is determined with visual inspection, staining, or imaging. In some embodiments, the visual inspection is via a microscope). In some embodiments, the visual inspection is via a slit-lamp microscope). In some embodiments, staining is ocular staining. In some embodiments, imaging is via infra-red imaging. In some embodiments, imaging is via meibography).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art axe 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 8, 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosworth et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication WO 2024/100454 A2 in view of Amano et al., Meibomian Gland Dysfunction Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Claim 8:
Bosworth discloses the limitations shown in the rejection above. Bosworth may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Amano as shown does:
wherein the abstracted disease progression chart is selected from the group consisting of an age abstracted disease progression chart, a gender abstracted disease progression chart, a race abstracted disease progression chart, and a multifactor abstracted disease progression chart (see at least Page 450, section related to BQ4, What is the prevalence of MGD? The prevalence according to age was 0% (6-19 years), 11.8% (20-29 years), 5.6% (30-39 years), 21.6% (40-49 years), 32.8% (50-59 years), 41.9% (60-69 years), 48.4% (70-79 years) and 63.9% (80-96 years), section related to BQ5, Many studies suggest that MGD increases with age. It is widely reported in men and postmenopausal women, Asian ethnicity, rural residence, occupation related to VDT, smoking, the use of SCL, and glaucoma eye drops).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of the disease prognosis method of Bosworth with the feature of Amano with the motivation of providing the benefit to “… provide clinical practice guidelines for MGD” because it is “… a clinically important diseases that reduces the quality of life”. (Amano, see at least the Preface section).
Claim 9:
Bosworth discloses the limitations shown in the rejection above. Bosworth may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Amano as shown does:
further comprising compiling a plurality of disease progression charts to create a disease progression library (see at least Page 486, Table 12, Level 1 Asymptomatic, OSDI Grade 1-12, No loss of meibomian glands, Meibum quality score 1-5, through to Level 5 Severely symptomatic, severe impairment with constant restriction in regular activities, OSDI Grade 33-100, Severe meibomian gland loss, Meibum quality score, 21-24), .
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of the disease prognosis method of Bosworth with the feature of Amano for at least the same reason given for claim 8.
Claim 17:
Bosworth discloses the limitations shown in the rejection above. Bosworth may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but Amano as shown does:
wherein assigning the first disease severity rating is based at least in part on a meibomian gland area loss determination (see at least Page 486, Table 12, Level 1 Asymptomatic, OSDI Grade 1-12, No loss of meibomian glands, Meibum quality score 1-5, through to Level 5 Severely symptomatic, severe impairment with constant restriction in regular activities, OSDI Grade 33-100, Severe meibomian gland loss, Meibum quality score, 21-24).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of the disease prognosis method of Bosworth with the feature of Amano for at least the same reason given for claim 8.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bosworth et al., WIPO Patent Application Publication WO 2024/100454 A2 in view of O’Dell, Meibography 101.
Claim 18:
Bosworth discloses the limitations shown in the rejection above. Bosworth may not specifically disclose the following limitations, but O’Dell as shown does:
wherein comparing the first plurality of patient data to the disease data standard includes determining a tortuosity of one or more meibomian glands (see at least Capturing And Analyzing Images section, There are standardized grading scales by which to evaluate gland atrophy,6,7 gland tortuosity,8 and gland segmentation. … standardize a way to analyze meibography images as it pertains to three main characteristics: atrophy, tortuosity, and segmentation; Figure 2, Halleran grading scale for meibomian gland tortuosity).
At the time of the filing of the application it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of the disease prognosis method of Bosworth with the determination feature of O’Dell with the motivation of providing additional benefit to the individual such that “… the standard of care for dry eye evaluations and screening patients should include meibography imaging to document gland structure and monitor for change over time” (O’Dell, see at least the “At A Glance” section).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joy Chng whose telephone number is 571.270.7897. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, JASON DUNHAM can be reached on 571.272.8109. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Joy Chng/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3686
Prosecution Insights