The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 7-8, 10, 12 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 is objected to because the preamble would be better worded as “A method of imaging [[for]] an eye for a surgical procedure, the method comprising:”.
Claim 2 is objected to because the acronyms “OD LED” and “OS LED” should be defined the first time they appear in the claims.
Claim 7 is objected to because there is a space after the last word and the period.
Claim 8 is objected to because the preamble would be better worded as “A surgical system for imaging an area of an eye of a patient, the surgical system comprising:”.
Claim 10 is objected to because it states “the second light sources”, even though there is only a single “second light source” recited in claim 8.
Claim 12 is objected to because it should read, for example, “wherein the imaging light source includes a third light source for [[to]] capturing” or “wherein the imaging light source includes a third light source configured to capture [[capturing]]”.
Claim 15 is objected to because the last line could be worded better. For instance, “… combine first and second images less reflections into the third image”, would be better as, for example, “… combine first and second images without reflections into the third image”, or something similar.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Second Paragraph
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 7, 10 and 12 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 7 is rejected because it is unclear if this claim positively recites a method step of iris registration. The current wording of “the third image is used for an iris registration” fails to teach the step of performing iris registration, and instead recites the intended use of the third image. For purposes of this Office action, it is interpreted to be intended use, therefore not positively requiring a step of iris registration to take place.
Claim 10 is rejected because it recites “wherein the first light source and the second light sources are arranged in the imaging light…”. In claim 8, it recites “an imaging light including a first light and a second light.” It is unclear if “an imaging light” in claim 8 is a positive structural component beyond “a first light and a second light”. For instance, it is unclear if this is meant to read on a housing or self-contained unit that encloses the first and second light source. For purposes of this Office action, it is interpreted to be that the “an imaging light” is simply a first and second light source. And for claim 10, these two components must simply be arranged in a manner that provides for “reflections captured in images at different locations of the area”.
Claim 12 is rejected because “the imaging light source” in line 1 lacks antecedent basis. This term was simply “an imaging light” in claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camus et al. (US Patent No. 6,088,470) in view of Zickler (US Patent Pub. No. 2009/0275929).
Regarding claim 1, Camus discloses a “method and apparatus for illuminating and imaging eyes uses multiple light sources producing multiple images of a subject each created under illumination by different illuminators” (see Abstract). Figure 7 illustrates the method of Camus, which includes:
capturing, using a … camera, a first image of the eye while the eye is illuminated with a first light source (see box 32);
within a subsequent time period from the capturing of the first image, capturing a second image of the eye while the eye is illuminated with a second light source, different from the first light source (see box 34);
processing the first and second images into a third image to remove specular reflections associated with the first light source and the second light source (see boxes 36, 38, 40 and 42).
With regard to these steps above, it is noted that “FIG. 3 shows a left-illuminated eye image, a right-illuminated image of the same eye, and a third image formed by fusion of the other two images” (see column 4, lines 18-20). Additionally, Figure 1 illustrates the structural configuration of a system used for this method (see column 4, lines 37-57).
However, it is noted that Camus does not explicitly state that the camera is a “torsion camera” or that this method is used in a surgical procedure.
Zickler teaches systems and methods for controlling measurement in an eye during ophthalmic procedure(s) (see Title). In paragraph 10, Zickler teaches that “A variety of eye tracking and beam scanning techniques have been proposed to align the customized laser ablation pattern with the eye. Some of these techniques rely upon imaging the eye. Specular reflections from natural (e.g., tear film, epithelium, stroma, sclera, and the like) or artificially created (e.g., from a corneal flap incision, surgical instrument, intraocular lens, implant, and the like) refractive index discontinuities of the human eye may decrease image detail, which would interfere with position detection and motion compensation.” Zickler provides for a manner to reduce or eliminate specular reflection, but does so utilizing polarization of light (see Figures 12-14). Paragraph 108 teaches that “The image [shown in Figure 12] is captured by an image capture device, such as a camera, eye tracker, or torsional tracker.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the techniques of Camus within an ophthalmic surgical setting to remove specular reflection within images of the eye and to acquire those images with a camera, which may include a torsion camera, as explicitly taught by Zickler, because both Camus and Zickler are directed to ocular imaging with the intention of removing specular reflections within the images that degrade the ability to track the eye, and the use of either one to perform the method taught by of specular reflection removal within a surgical setting via a torsion camera versus any other camera with comparable frame rates would amount to choosing from a finite number of imaging devices and techniques available in the art at the time of the invention, which has previously been held as unpatentable (KSR v. Teleflex).
Regarding claim 2, it is noted that Figure 1 of Camus illustrates a first light source 2 and a second light source 4. While either one of these light sources may be interpreted to read on, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, “an auxiliary light emitting diode”, the other of the two is interpreted to read on, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, “OD LED or OS LED for respective right eye or left eye imaging.” It is noted that “an auxiliary” LED does not explicitly impart any limitations to the LED, other than giving it a name – auxiliary. Additionally, it is noted that Camus teaches that “The light sources 2 and 4 may be implemented with one or more high-power light-emitting diodes” (see column 6, lines 59-60).
Regarding claim 3, it is noted that Camus teaches that “As long as the two light sources 2 and 4 are sufficiently separated so that the virtual image 23 and its associated blooming does not overlap virtual image 21 and its associated blooming, every portion of the subject is clearly visible in at least one of the first image or the second image. Hence, in one or both of the left image and center image of FIG. 3 every portion of a person's iris can be clearly seen” (see column 6, lines 50-58). Additionally, it is clearly illustrated in Figure 1 that the light sources 2 and 4 are on opposite sides of the imager.
Regarding claims 4-5, Camus teaches that “the light sources 2 and 4 are pulsed or flashed in synchronization with the exposure times of the camera 11. This can be done using a strobing device 12 and an illumination controller 14 connected to the strobing device 12 and the camera 11” (see column 4, lines 51-55). It is noted that Figure 7 illustrates that box 32 is distinct from box 34, which teaches that there is distinction between the acquisition of the right-illuminated image and the left-illuminated image, thereby reading on the additional limitations in claim 5.
Regarding claim 7, Camus teaches that “Our method and apparatus are particularly useful for creating images that are used to identify a person from that person's iris” (see column 3, lines 42-44 and claim 7). Additionally, Zickler teaches in paragraph 104 that the improvement of removing reflections from images can be helpful in iris detection, as well as paragraph 96 discussing the use of iris tracking for torsion offset determination.
Regarding claim 8, Camus teaches an imaging light includes a first light source (see numeral 2) and a second light source (see numeral 4);
a synchronization circuit configured to receive or generate a pulsed signa to illuminate the first light source for a first time period and illuminate the second light source for a second time period, different than the first time period (see column 4, lines 51-55: Camus teaches that “the light sources 2 and 4 are pulsed or flashed in synchronization with the exposure times of the camera 11. This can be done using a strobing device 12 and an illumination controller 14 connected to the strobing device 12 and the camera 11”), thereby making it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that there is a circuit or equivalent in the controller performing the function of this claimed circuit;
a… camera configured to capture a first image of the area during the first time period, the first image having a first light reflection from the first light source (see box 32 in Figure 7), and capture a second image of the area during the second time period, the second image having a second light reflection from the second light source (see box 34 in Figure 7);
a processor configured to generate a third image based on the captured first image and second image, the third image having no specular light reflections (see boxes 36, 38, 40 and 42; see “image processor” 16 in Figure 1; see Figure 3 illustrating the images acquired via box 32 and 34 followed by the third image with no specular reflection).
However, it is noted that Camus does not explicitly state that the camera is a “torsion camera” or that this method is used in a surgical procedure.
Zickler teaches systems and methods for controlling measurement in an eye during ophthalmic procedure(s) (see Title). In paragraph 10, Zickler teaches that “A variety of eye tracking and beam scanning techniques have been proposed to align the customized laser ablation pattern with the eye. Some of these techniques rely upon imaging the eye. Specular reflections from natural (e.g., tear film, epithelium, stroma, sclera, and the like) or artificially created (e.g., from a corneal flap incision, surgical instrument, intraocular lens, implant, and the like) refractive index discontinuities of the human eye may decrease image detail, which would interfere with position detection and motion compensation.” Zickler provides for a manner to reduce or eliminate specular reflection, but does so utilizing polarization of light (see Figures 12-14). Paragraph 108 teaches that “The image [shown in Figure 12] is captured by an image capture device, such as a camera, eye tracker, or torsional tracker.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize the techniques of Camus within an ophthalmic surgical setting to remove specular reflection within images of the eye and to acquire those images with a camera, which may include a torsion camera, as explicitly taught by Zickler, because both Camus and Zickler are directed to ocular imaging with the intention of removing specular reflections within the images that degrade the ability to track the eye, and the use of either one to perform the method taught by of specular reflection removal within a surgical setting via a torsion camera versus any other camera with comparable frame rates would amount to choosing from a finite number of imaging devices and techniques available in the art at the time of the invention, which has previously been held as unpatentable (KSR v. Teleflex).
Regarding claim 9, Figure 3 illustrates that the area comprises an iris. Also, Camus teaches that “Our method and apparatus are particularly useful for creating images that are used to identify a person from that person's iris” (see column 3, lines 42-44 and claim 7). Additionally, Zickler teaches in paragraph 104 that the improvement of removing reflections from images can be helpful in iris detection, as well as paragraph 96 discussing the use of iris tracking for torsion offset determination.
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that Figure 3 of Camus illustrates that the different light sources are arranged to produce reflections captured in images at different locations of the area.
Regarding claim 13, Camus teaches that “The light sources may produce visible light or non-visible light such as infrared” (see column 6, lines 66-67; also see claims 3, 12 and 22 of Camus).
Regarding claim 14, it is noted that Zickler teaches that “While the system and methods of the present invention are described primarily in the context of improving a laser eye surgery system, it should be understood the techniques of the present invention may be adapted for use in alternative eye treatment procedures and systems such as femtosecond lasers and laser treatment, infrared lasers and laser treatments, radial keratotomy (RK), scleral bands, follow up diagnostic procedures, and the like” (see paragraph 18). Therefore, the combination of Camus with the teachings of Zickler make it obvious to utilize eye tracking via specular reflection reduction within ophthalmic surgeries that include those using femtosecond lasers.
Regarding claim 15, Camus states that “FIG. 3 shows a left-illuminated eye image, a right-illuminated image of the same eye, and a third image formed by fusion of the other two images” (see column 4, lines 18-20).
Claims 6 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Camus in view of Zickler as applied to claims 5, 8 and 10 above, and further in view of Haven et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2004/0170304).
Camus in combination with Zickler is described above with respect to claims 5, 8 and 10. However, Camus only states that “If a first illuminator and a second illuminator are alternately illuminated at the same frame rate as the video camera, then one field for a single image will have been created with the first illuminator activated and the other field for that image will have been created with the second illuminator activated. Consequently, if video images are available we can select the even field as our first image and the odd field as our second image or vice versa. If this is done we assume that adjacent pairs of pixels in the video image, one pixels from an odd raster line and the other pixel from an even raster line, correspond to a single unique point on the subject” (see column 6, lines 1-14). However, there is no explicit frame rates mentioned.
Haven teaches an apparatus and method for detecting pupils (see Title). Figure 4A illustrates a timing chart between frame acquisitions and pulses emitted by “the on-axis and off-axis light sources (e.g., first light source 103 and second light source 105, respectively, of FIG. 1)” (see paragraph 51-52). It is noted that Figure 1 of Haven illustrates a similar structural set up to that of Figure 1 of Camus. As shown in Figure 4A, an image frame is acquired during each pulse of on-axis and off-axis illumination. Paragraph 47 of Haven teaches an exemplary frame rate of 30 frames per second (fps). However, paragraph 48 teaches that “It is appreciated that frame rates other than 30 fps may be used; for example, higher frame rates are expected to reduce artifacts resulting from the motion of subject 120 (e.g., the vehicle operator) or from background motion.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to utilize frame rates higher than 30 fps, thereby including 60 fps and higher, with in ocular imaging of the eye for tracking (i.e., pupil detection) via a system utilizing multiple illumination angles, as taught by Haven, and to do so within the system and methods of Camus as combined with Zickler, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPC 215 (CCPA 1980) - see MPEP 2144.05(II)), and Haven explicitly teaches that high frame rates are beneficial in reducing artifacts.
Regarding claim 12, it is noted that Haven teaches multiple structural set ups for the detector and light source(s). These include the configuration shown in Figure 1 and 3, the configuration shown in Figure 5 which most resembles that of Camus, the configuration shown in Figures 8-13. It is noted that Figures 11 and 12 illustrate configurations that read on the subject matter of claim 12, for incorporation of a third light source. Also, Haven teaches that “It is appreciated that both eyes may be monitored” (see paragraph 40).
Conclusion
The following prior art is herein made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, but not relied upon in the rejections above:
Abraham et al. – US Patent Pub. No. 2024/0331113
Abraham teaches an ophthalmic system images an eye region comprising at least one eye. A computer identifies reflection pixels of the first image portion, where the reflection pixels image a reflection of light from the illuminator reflected by a location of the eye region; determines image information of correction pixels of the second image portion, where the correction pixels image the same location of the eye region; and corrects the reflection pixels using the identified image information to reduce the reflection. See Abstract and paragraph 3.
Xiang et al. – US Patent Pub. No. 2024/0112333
Xiang teaches systems and methods in which a plurality of images corresponding to different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum are obtained and combined, such as by pixel-wise subtraction to obtain a combined image. See Abstract.
Yamaguchi et al. – US Patent Pub. No. 2024/0041323
Yamaguchi teaches that techniques or technologies for removing corneal specular reflection noise from an eye image obtained by a modality such as a fundus camera or an optical coherence tomography (OCT) apparatus are widely known (see paragraph 60). Yamaguchi adds to this field with a new technique.
Grubb et al. – US Patent Pub. No. 2018/0039846
Grubb teaches a system and method to remove glare from images of the eyes of a person utilizing at least two light sources and an imager therebetween (see Figure 3A)
Hanna – US Patent Pub. No. 2012/0187838
Hanna teaches a method of providing active illumination during biometry that utilizes pulsed lighting synchronized to frame acquisition. Figure 6 illustrates a version of the system utilizing multiple illuminators with a single camera.
Majewicz – US Patent Pub. No. 2012/0314103
Majewicz teaches a method for glare and shadow mitigation by fusing multiple frames which includes illuminating the target with light from a first illumination direction and capturing a first frame of the target with a camera while the target is illuminated in the first illumination direction. The method also includes illuminating the target with light from a second illumination direction and capturing a second frame of the target with the camera while the target is illuminated in the second illumination direction. The first frame and second frame are fused together to form a composite image that simultaneously mitigates glare and shadow areas. See Abstract and figures.
Kisacanin et al. – US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0084499
Kisacanin teaches a system that includes a video imaging camera orientated to generate images of the subject object (e.g., eye(s)) in successive video frames. The system also includes first and second light sources operable to illuminate the object one at a time. The system further includes a processor for processing the image by performing pixel-wise operation to combine multiple frames into a single frame to reduce glare in the image. The system may remove glare caused by the illuminators and caused by external energy sources. See Abstract and the flowchart of Figure 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES KISH whose telephone number is (571)272-5554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00a - 6p 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/JAMES KISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792