DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 14, and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1: the term “a” should be added before the term “property” in line 1; a colon should be added after the term “comprising” in line 2; a colon should be added after the term “use” in line 6; the term “a” should be added before the term “plurality” in line 12; the term “a” should be added before the term “value” in line 13;
Regarding claim 3: the term “amplitude” in line 3 should be replaced with the term “amplitudes”;
Regarding claim 4: the term “a” should be added before the term “Capacitive” in line 4;
Regarding claim 5: the term “a” should be added before the term “communication” in line 3;
Regarding claim 6, the term “a” should be added before the term “velocity” in line 2;
Regarding claim 8, the term “a” should be added before the term “preset” in line 3;
Regarding claim 12, the term “a” should be inserted before the term “property” in line 1; the term “a” should be added before the term “value” in line 10;
Regarding claim 14, the term “amplitude” in line 2 should be replaced with the term “amplitudes”;
Regarding claim 17, the term “a” should be added before the term “preset” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 2-11, 13, and 14 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.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase “measure… from the plurality of reflections time taken to receive reflections of the ultrasonic pulse” renders the claim indefinite. Is only one measurement of time taken for all reflections? Or is a time measurement taken for each reflection? For this examination, both interpretations will be applied. The same indefinites issue and interpretation also apply to claim 13.
Regarding claim 3, it is unclear what is meant by “and use the measured amplitudes to select the at least one reflection” (emphasis added). What is the measured amplitude being selected for? For this examination, any reference that discloses measuring amplitudes of the plurality of received reflections of the ultrasonic pulse and using those amplitudes for further analysis will read on the limitation. The same indefiniteness issue and interpretation also apply to claim 14.
Regarding claim 4, the phrase “the induction coil” in lines 4-5 lacks proper antecedent basis. While “an induction coil” is recited in line 3, the induction coil of line 3 is not a part of the claimed invention if the ultrasound sensor comprises the capacitive micromachined ultrasound transducer element. The Examiner suggests amending the language in question to read “an induction coil”.
Claims 5-11 are rejected due to their dependence on claim 4.
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 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang’973 (CN209712973U – cited by Applicant).
Regarding claim 19, Figure 1 of Wang’973 discloses an elongated magnetic probe (elements 2, 4, 5, 6) having a probe head, wherein the probe head comprises an ultrasonic sensor (element 4) therein (sections [0031], [0033], [0041-0043]).
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, 2, 12, 13, 15-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin’577 (US Pub No. 2019/0380577 – cited by Applicant) in view of Wang’973.
Regarding claims 1 and 19, Figure 1 of Martin’577 discloses an apparatus for measuring a property of an eye (see ABSTRACT and section [0001]), the apparatus comprising: an elongated magnetic probe 12 having a probe head 12B (sections [0018-0019]); a driver coil 18 arranged partially to surround the elongated magnetic probe (sections [0018-0019]); and a controller 20+24 configured to, when in use: selectively energize the driver coil to create a magnetic force to initiate movement of the elongated magnetic probe to contact the probe head with a surface of the eye, and calculate the property of the eye (sections [0018-0019], [0021]; intraocular pressure is one of the properties determined).
Martin’577 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for: the probe head comprising an ultrasonic sensor that is configured to send an ultrasonic pulse upon contacting the surface of the eye; and the controller being configured to measure, using the ultrasonic sensor, time taken to receive at least one reflection of a plurality of reflections of the ultrasonic pulse, and calculate the property of the eye using a value of the time taken to receive at least one reflection of the ultrasonic pulse. Wang’973 teaches that corneal thickness must be considered when measuring intraocular pressure (section [0007]). Wang’973 discloses a similar apparatus for measuring intraocular pressure of an eye, wherein an ultrasonic sensor is incorporated into a magnetic probe head, and time values measured from reflections of ultrasonic pulses generated by the ultrasonic sensor are used to determine corneal thickness. The corneal thickness measurement is used to correct an intraocular pressure measurement, thus providing a more accurate intraocular pressure measurement (sections [0019], [0031], [0033], [0040], [0044]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the apparatus of Martin’577 to include an ultrasonic sensor within the probe head, and to configure the controller to measure time taken to receive at least one reflection of a plurality of reflections of an ultrasonic pulse generated by the ultrasonic sensor, and use the measured time to correct an intraocular pressure measurement, as Wang’973 teaches that this would provide a more accurate intraocular pressure measurement.
Regarding claim 2, as taught by Wang’973, the controller would be configured to measure, using the ultrasonic sensor, from the plurality of reflections time taken to receive reflections of the ultrasonic pulse corresponding to interfaces between parts of the eye (section [0040]).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, the sections of Martin’577 cited above, as modified by Wang’973, disclose a method for measuring property of an eye, the method comprising the steps set forth in the claims.
Regarding claim 15, Martin’577 discloses that the method further comprises measuring a velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe during the initiated movement of the elongated magnetic probe (see ABSTRACT, and sections [0007], [0015], [0018-0019]).
Regarding claim 16, Martin’577 discloses that the method comprises determining a period of time the probe head is contacting the surface of the eye using the velocity profile (section [0024]). As modified by Wang’973, the ultrasonic sensor is activated for at least part of the period of time that the probe head contacts the surface of the eye (section [0033] of Wang’973 discloses that the ultrasonic sensor is activated when the pressure measuring probe is pressed on the surface of the eye).
Regarding claim 17, Figure 2 of Martin’577 shows that the slope of the velocity signal is negative when the probe is in contact with the surface of the eye. The first derivative of a negative slope is less than zero. In the combination of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973, the ultrasonic sensor is activated when a first derivative in respect to time of the velocity profile is below a preset threshold value (the preset threshold value being zero).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin’577 in view of Wang’973, as applied to claims 1 and 12, further in view of Sarver’362 (US Pub No. 2001/0033362).
Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 8 above, except for the controller being further configured to measure, using the ultrasonic sensor, amplitudes of the plurality of received reflections of the ultrasonic pulse. Sarver’362 teaches that corneal thickness is commonly measured using an A-scan ultrasound technique (section [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have used an A-scan type ultrasonic sensor as the ultrasonic sensor of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973, as Sarver’362 teaches that corneal thickness is commonly measured using an A-scan type ultrasonic sensor.
Claims 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin’577 in view of Wang’973, as applied to claim 1, further in view of Esenaliev’699 (US Pub No. 2022/0039699) further in view of Cao’324 (US Pub No. 2016/0058324).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 8 above, except for the ultrasonic sensor comprising at least one of a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasound transducer (PMUT) element coupled with an induction coil or a capacitive micromachined ultrasound transducer (CMUT) element coupled with an induction coil. Esenaliev’699 teaches that a CMUT is a known type of ultrasonic transducer (section [0182]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have used a CMUT as the ultrasonic sensor of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 as it would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed above, except for the CMUT being coupled with an induction coil. Cao’324 teaches coupling a sensor with an induction coil in order to provide wireless data transmission between the sensor and a data acquisition device (sections [0012], [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the apparatus of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 such that its ultrasonic sensor is coupled to an induction coil, as Cao’324 teaches that this would allow data obtained from the ultrasonic sensor to be wirelessly transmitted to the data acquisition device (the controller/processor). The modification to Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Furthermore, Cao’324 teaches coupling a sensor with an induction coil in order to provide energy to the sensor (sections [0012], [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the apparatus of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 such that its ultrasonic sensor is coupled to an induction coil, as Cao’324 teaches that this would allow the sensor to be wirelessly charged. The modification to Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 6, as discussed with respect to claim 15 above, Martin’577 discloses a measurement coil (Figure 1, measurement coil 22) configured to measure a velocity profile of the elongated magnetic probe during the initiated movement of the elongated magnetic probe (see ABSTRACT, and sections [0007], [0015], [0018-0019]).
Regarding claim 7, as discussed with respect to claim 16 above, Martin’577 discloses that the controller is configured to determine a period of time the probe head is contacting the surface of the eye using the velocity profile (section [0024]). As modified by Wang’973, the ultrasonic sensor is activated for at least part of the period of time that the probe head contacts the surface of the eye (section [0033] of Wang’973 discloses that the ultrasonic sensor is activated when the pressure measuring probe is pressed on the surface of the eye).
Regarding claim 8, as discussed with respect to claim 17 above, Figure 2 of Martin’577 shows that the slope of the velocity signal is negative when the probe is in contact with the surface of the eye. The first derivative of a negative slope is less than zero. In the combination of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 further in view of Cao’324, the ultrasonic sensor is activated when a first derivative in respect to time of the velocity profile is below a preset threshold value (the preset threshold value being zero).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Martin’577 discloses that the apparatus is a rebound tonometer (see TITLE). A rebound tonometer performs the functions recited in claim 9 (see section [0002] of Martin’577).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 further in view of Cao’324, as applied to claim 7, further in view of Cuzzani et al.’343 (US Pub No. 2003/0187343) further in view of Kawai et al.’554 (US Pub No. 2011/0157554).
Regarding claim 11, Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 further in view of Cao’324 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 10 above, except for the property of the eye being an axial length. Cuzzani et al.’343 teaches determining an axial length of an eye in order to determine a more accurate intraocular pressure (section [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the apparatus of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 further in view of Cao’324 to be configured to determine an axial length of the eye, as taught by Cuzzani et al.’343, as the axial length measurement could be used, along with the corneal thickness measurement, to determine a more accurate intraocular pressure.
While Cuzzani et al.’343 teaches determining axial length using a laser interferometer, Kawai et al.’554 teaches that axial length of an eye can be determined using an ultrasonic sensor (sections [0005], [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the apparatus of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Esenaliev’699 further in view of Cao’324 further in view of Cuzzani et al.’343 to be configured such that the axial length is determined using signals received from the ultrasonic sensor, as it would merely be substituting one known axial length determination method (using an ultrasonic sensor) for another (using a laser interferometer) to obtain predictable results.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin’577 in view of Wang’973, as applied to claim 12, further in view of Cuzzani et al.’343 further in view of Kawai et al.’554.
Regarding claim 18, Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 8 above, except for the property of the eye being an axial length. Cuzzani et al.’343 teaches determining an axial length of an eye in order to determine a more accurate intraocular pressure (section [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 to include determining an axial length of the eye, as taught by Cuzzani et al.’343, as the axial length measurement could be used, along with the corneal thickness measurement, to determine a more accurate intraocular pressure.
While Cuzzani et al.’343 teaches determining axial length using a laser interferometer, Kawai et al.’554 teaches that axial length of an eye can be determined using an ultrasonic sensor (sections [0005], [0074]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the method of Martin’577 in view of Wang’973 further in view of Cuzzani et al.’343 such that the axial length is determined using signals received from the ultrasonic sensor, as it would merely be substituting one known axial length determination method (using an ultrasonic sensor) for another (using a laser interferometer) to obtain predictable results.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang’973, as applied to claim 19, further in view of Cao’324.
Regarding claim 20, Wang’973 discloses all of the elements of the current invention, as discussed in paragraph 6 above, except for the elongated magnetic probe further comprising an induction arrangement for receiving energy and to provide a communication link. Cao’324 discloses a measurement system comprising an induction arrangement for receiving energy and to provide a communication link (sections [0012], [0037]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the elongated magnetic probe of Wang’973 to further comprise an induction arrangement for receiving energy and to provide a communication link, as it would merely be combining prior art elements according to know methods to yield predictable results. The modification to Wang’973 would allow data to be wirelessly transmitted from the ultrasonic sensor to a data processing device, and would also allow for the wireless charging of components coupled to the elongated magnetic probe.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Makkeli et al.’681 (US Pub No. 2018/0368681) discloses an apparatus for determining a propery of the eye, the apparatus comprising an elongated magnetic probe having a probe head, a driver coil arranged partially to surround the elongated magnetic probe, and a controller configured to selectively energize the driver coil to create a magnetic force to initiate movement of the elongated magnetic probe. Shrestha et al.’258 (US Pub No. 2012/0236258), Peyman’021 (US Pub No. 2012/0089021), Olsen’807 (US Pub No. 2013/0345807), and Cai et al.’609 (US Pub No. 2016/0262609) each teach that A-scan ultrasound techniques (a technique in which amplitudes of received reflections of ultrasonic pulses are measured) are commonly/traditionally used to calculate axial length of an eye (section [0005] of Shrestha et al.’258, section [0003] of Peyman’021, section [0122] of Olsen’807, and section [0004] of Cai et al.’609). Wentz’753 (US Pub No. 2019/0239753) and Moehring et al.’917 (US Pub No. 2018/0310917) each teach that the use of capacitive micromachined ultrasound transducers as an ultrasound sensor is well-known (section [0075] of Wentz’753, and section [0055] of Moehring et al.’917). Lloyd et al.’137 (US Pub No. 2004/0073137) teaches using an inductive coil coupled to a sensor to wirelessly transmit data acquired from the sensor to a processing unit (section [0032]). Ostermeier et al.’219 (US Pub No. 2019/0321219) teaches coupling an acoustic sensor with an induction coil in order for the induction coil to transmit signals obtained by the acoustic sensor to a receiver (sections [0018], [0069]). Barth et al.’137 (US Pub No. 2005/0018137) teaches that axial length of a human eye is usually measured by a contact ultrasound method (section [0002]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ETSUB D BERHANU whose telephone number is (571)270-5410. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:30pm 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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/ETSUB D BERHANU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights