Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/01/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “a measurement coil” in line 3 should be amended to read –the measurement coil--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “in the” in line 8 should be amended to read –in the--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 11 should be depending on claim 10 instead of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 12-14 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Reichert et al (EP 3 581 089 A1, in IDS mailed on 03/01/2024).
As to claims 1 and 12, Reichert teaches a rebound tonometer (tonometer 10, par.14-15, fig.1) comprising: a body having a proximal end and a distal end opposite to the proximal end (elongate upper body of housing 14 having open proximal end 28 and opposite distal end, par.15, fig.1),
wherein the body has an opening (entrance opening at proximal end 28 where probe 12 enters and ejects from, par.15-16, fig.1) at the proximal end;
a magnetic elongated probe (magnetic probe 12 having first end 112B and second end 12A, pr.15, fig.1) having a first end and a second end opposite to the first end, wherein the magnetic elongated probe is arranged at least partially in the body in a manner that the first end protrudes outside of the body from the opening of the body, the first end is at a first distance (D1) from the opening (probe 12 is aligned inside housing 14 along axis 11, where first end 12B protrudes distance D1 from proximal end 28 of housing 14, par.15-16, fig.1), and the second end is inside the body (12A is inside housing 14 while first end 12B protrudes out, as best seen in fig.1), and
wherein the magnetic elongated probe is arranged to be aligned with and movable along an axis of the rebound tonometer (axis 11, par.15-16, fig.1);
a measurement coil (coil 22, par.15-16, fig.1) and a drive coil (coil 18, par.15, fig.1) arranged inside the body and to partially surround the magnetic elongated probe (coils 22 and 18 partially surrounds probe 12, fig.1); and
a controller (controller 20, par.15-16, fig.1) configured to:
detect a contact between an object and the first end, when the rebound tonometer is in use (energizing probe 18 via coil 18 to eject probe 12 toward the eye, par.15, determine eye contact after measuring return velocity of probe 12, par.15-19), by:
energizing the drive coil to move the magnetic elongated probe in respect to the body to have the first end at a second distance (D2) from the proximal end, the second distance being greater than the first distance (energizing probe 18 via coil 18 to eject probe 12 toward the eye to move to a further distance D2 to contact the eye, par.15, and par.19);
measuring a first induced voltage in the measurement coil as a function of time during a first time period (calculating first derivative of the measured signal at time Tv when velocity of probe is zero and them correlated the first derivative to an IOP value, par.19 and par.28, fig.2), and
comparing the measured first induced voltage as function of time with a predetermined criterion, and if based on the comparison the predetermined criterion is met, use it as an indication of a detected contact between the first end and the object (calculating first derivative of the measured signal at time Tv when velocity of probe is zero and them correlated the first derivative to an IOP value, par.19 and par.28, fig.2); and initiate a measurement cycle of the rebound tonometer when the contact is detected (initiate measuring of IOP after detecting probe velocity and determining the probe did hit the cornea, par.17-19 and apr.27-29).
As to claims 2 and 13, Reichert teaches the rebound tonometer, wherein the predetermined criterion is selected to be one of: a predetermined voltage threshold value, an integral value of the measured first induced voltage as function of time over the first time period, a derivate value of the first induced voltage as function of time or a predetermined pattern (calculating first derivative of the measured signal at time Tv when velocity of probe is zero and them correlated the first derivative to an IOP value, par.19 and par.28, fig.2).
As to claims 3 and 14, Reichert teaches the rebound tonometer, wherein the measurement cycle comprises:
- energizing a measurement coil to retract the magnetic elongated probe into the body to have the first end at the first distance from the proximal end (energizing probe 18 via coil 18 to eject probe 12 toward the eye, par.15);
- energizing the drive coil to eject the magnetic elongated probe out of the body to have the first end at a third distance from the proximal end (the distance returned by probe 12 after hitting the cornea, par.15);
- completing the measurement cycle by measuring a second voltage that is induced in the measurement coil as a function of time during a 30 second time period of the ejection of the magnetic elongated probe (initiating measurement by controller 20 to measure velocity of the probe to determine IOP, par.15-20),
wherein the second voltage is indicative of the first end colliding with the object; and
- using the second voltage for determining the property of the object (determine IOP, par.15-20 and par.27).
As to claims 9 and 18, Reichert teaches the rebound tonometer, further comprising at least one sensor, wherein the controller is configured to:
collect, from the at least one sensor (logic 25, par.17), sensor data indicative of displacement and/or velocity of the magnetic elongated probe as a function of time during the measurement cycle (determining probe return velocity, par.17-19);
determine a velocity and/or an acceleration of the magnetic elongated probe, based on the sensor data (determining probe return velocity, par.17-19); and
determine a property of the object, based on a change in the velocity and/or the acceleration of the magnetic elongated probe (par.19-29).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Reichert et al (EP 3 581 089 A1).
Reichert teaches the invention substantially as claimed above, but failed to explicitly teach the third distance lies in a range of 0.5 to 2.0 times of the second distance.
However, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to eject the probe a distance that ranges from 0.5 to 2.0 times of the second distance moved by the probe, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-8, 10, 15-17, 19 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAY A ABOUELELA whose telephone number is (571)270-7917. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5.
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, JACQUELINE CHENG can be reached at 5712725596. 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.
/MAY A ABOUELELA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights