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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements submitted on 3/28/2024, 8/22/2024, 2/12/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the communication filed 3/28/2024.
Cancellation of claims 1-14, filed 3/28/2024, are acknowledged and accepted.
Newly submitted claims 15-28, filed 3/28/2024, are acknowledged and accepted.
Amendment to the abstract, filed 3/28/2024, is acknowledged and accepted.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the first sentence is not a complete sentence. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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 disclosure is further objected to because the specification is replete with informalities and 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 informalities and unclear, inexact, or verbose terms used in the specification are listed as follows:
On pg. 1, line 10, “decisive default parameter” has no clear meaning
On pg. 1, line 33, to pg. 2, line 1, the entire sentence reciting “Each housing contains one or more disks or wheels which are arranged in succession… are arranged” is malformed with improper nesting and list structure, rendering it difficult to parse and grammatically unclear.
On pg. 3, lines 32-34, “a time period including, before or after a time which represents…” is grammatically unclear and appears to be incompletely phrased
On pg. 4, line 3, “a variation in the plurality of images may contain…” is unclear/improper usage. It does not make much sense to say that “a variation” “may contain” anything; “contain” should be replaced with “represent”, “indicate”, or some other sensible option
On pg. 4, lines 20-21, “This may be implemented directly correlated in time with,” is grammatically improper and unclear
On pg. 5, line 21, “a greatest” has an improper/indefinite article (‘a’), and should instead read “the greatest” as there can definitively be only one “greatest” of anything.
On pg. 8, lines 18-19, “a time period including, before or after a time which, especially…” is grammatically incoherent
On pg. 8, line 25, “selectively select” is improperly redundant
On pg. 11, lines 5-6, “The terms… contain a collection of data, which contain…” is unclear/improper usage. It does not make sense to say that “terms” “contain data”; “contain” should be replaced with “encompass”, “refer to”, or some other sensible option. The second “contain” should also read “contains” as it refers to a singular object (“a collection [of data]”)
On pg. 11, lines 7-8, “measurement data and/or image data, e.g. data …, and/or analysis data” is improper list construction.
On pg. 11, lines 8-9, “The data contain measurement data” is not clear
Examiner notes the above list is not exhaustive, and reiterates that the specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a). Applicant’s specification should be provided in clear and proper idiomatic English and contain no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-28 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, line 12; claim 17, lines 2,5, and 9; claim 20, lines 7-8; and claim 28, line 2, Applicant repeatedly switches between different spellings (British/English) of the word analyse/analyze and its inflections. This is improper. Applicant is advised to pick one convention and to use it consistently throughout the claims.
In claim 15, lines 12-14 improperly chains together several relative clauses, which is cumbersome to parse/understand (“a computer analysing apparatus that… and which… and is provided and configured”)
In claim 27, lines 11-12, “manually or automatically or once or multiple times” is improper chaining and should read “manually, automatically, one time, or multiple times”
Claims not specifically addressed in the objections above inherit the objection of the claims from which they depend. 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 15-28 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 15, line 12 recites "the eye registration" which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “an eye registration”.
Regarding claim 17, lines 2, 5, and 9 recite “the [analysing/analyzing] apparatus that analyzes the eye registration” or “the apparatus for analyzing the eye registration” which lack a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, each instance shall be read as “the computer analysing apparatus that analyses the eye registration” as earlier introduced in claim 15, line 12.
Further regarding claim 17, lines 6-7 recite “a time period”. However, line 2 of claim 16 also introduced “at least one time period”. It is therefore unclear whether claim 17 is establishing a new “time period” distinct from those introduced in claim 16, whether they overlap somehow, etc. For examination purposes (and following cues from the similar claim 24 – reciting “first time period”, “second time period”, etc.), claim 17’s “time period” shall treated as distinct from those established in claim 16.
Further regarding claim 17, “a time period including, before or after a time which…” is grammatically unclear and appears to be incompletely phrased.
Further regarding claim 17, lines 3 and 6 each recite “a selection of the images”, overloading the phrase with multiple introductions and causing ambiguity as to whether each “selection” refers to a distinct or common object. For examination purposes, each “selection” shall be treated as distinct from each other (i.e. as “a first” and “a second selection”).
Regarding claim 18, lines 1-2 recite “the selection of the images”, whose meaning is obfuscated by the multiple introductions and indefiniteness described in the previous rejection of claim 17. For examination purposes, and following the interpretation given in the rejection immediately prior, claim 18’s “selection of the images” shall be treated as corresponding to that recited on line 3 of claim 17 (i.e. as “the first selection”)
Further regarding claim 18, line 2 introduces “at least one time period”. However, line 2 of claim 16 already introduced “at least one time period”. The phrase is thus overloaded with multiple introductions, causing ambiguity as to whether each instance refers to a distinct or common object. For examination purposes, the two instances shall be taken to refer to a common object, with claim 18’s “at least one time period” read as “the at least one time period” established in claim 16.
Regarding claim 19, lines 6 and 7 recite “[the/said] device that provides different optical elements” which lack a proper antecedent basis – and whose “optical elements” appear to have already been introduced in claim 15, line 5. For examination purposes, the limitations shall be read as “[the/said] device that provides, in the opening, the different optical elements”, as earlier introduced in claim 15, line 5.
Regarding claim 20, lines 5-6 recite “manually, automatically, and once or multiple times”. This is ambiguous/unclear – “manually” and “automatically” are mutually exclusive qualities yet are joined with “and”, and they are further lumped together with “once or multiple times” which further confuses what the claim requires. For examination purposes (and following cues from the similar claim 27, lines 11-12), the limitation will be interpreted logically as: manually OR automatically OR one time OR multiple times.
Further regarding claim 20, lines 7-8 recites “the apparatus for analyzing the eye registration data-connected to the eye registration device” which is incoherent and also lacks proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “the computer analysing apparatus that analyses the eye registration” as earlier introduced in claim 15, line 12.
Further regarding claim 20, lines 7-10 recite “where in the apparatus… is configured to analyze…, to select…, to register…, [or]”. The entire clause/limitation is malformed, having poor list construction that lacks a conjunction and that is improperly punctuated with a comma instead of a semicolon. This causes not only internal ambiguity, but further confusion when considered together with the rest of the claim. For examination purposes (and following cues from the similar claim 28, lines 2-5), the limitation shall be read as “where in the apparatus… is configured to analyze…, to select…, or to register…; [or]”.
Regarding claim 22, lines 5, 8, and 10 each recite “the planning device” which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, each instance shall be read as “the computerized planning device” as established in line 1 of claim 22.
Further regarding claim 22, line 5 introduces “control data for the laser device of the treatment apparatus”. However, line 1 already introduced “control data for a treatment apparatus”. It is thus unclear whether they refer to distinct or common objects. For examination purposes, the excerpt from line 5 shall be read as “the control data for the treatment apparatus”.
Further regarding claim 22, line 9 recites “a laser eye treatment”. However, “laser eye treatment” was already introduced in line 1. The phrase is thus overloaded with multiple introductions, causing ambiguity as to whether each “laser eye treatment” refers to a distinct or common object. For examination purposes, the excerpt from line 9 shall be read as “the laser eye treatment”.
Regarding claim 23, lines 1 recites “a treatment apparatus that performs laser eye treatment” while line 6 recites “a treatment apparatus for laser treatment”. It is unclear whether these are referring to a common object, or if they are distinct as the inconsistent phrasing and introductory language would appear to suggest. Moreover, the previous claim 22’s lines 1-2 already introduced “a treatment apparatus that performs laser eye treatment”, which would overload the phrase quoted from claim 23’s line 1. For examination purposes, these shall all be read to corresponding to the same object.
Further regarding claim 23, line 3 recites “a laser device”. However, line 3 of the previous claim 22 already introduced “a laser device”. The phrase is thus overloaded with multiple introductions, causing ambiguity as to whether each instance refers to a distinct or common object. For examination purposes, claim 23’s “a laser device” shall be read as “the laser device”.
Further regarding claim 23, line 5 recites “a planning device”. However, line 1 of the previous claim 22 introduced “a computerized planning device”. It is thus unclear whether claim 23 is introducing a new “planning device” or referring back to claim 22’s. For examination purpose, claim 23’s “a planning device” shall be read as “the computerized planning device”
Regarding claim 24:
line 1 recites “a laser eye treatment”
lines 2 recites “an eye registration”
line 2 recites “an eye”
lines 2-3 recite “a provision of different optical elements”
line 4 recites “a measuring apparatus”
line 5 recites “a laser eye treatment”
line 6 recites “a plurality of images”
line 8 introduces “at least one reference image”
However, in claim 15:
line 1 already introduced “a laser eye treatment”
line 12 already introduced “the eye registration” (read as “an eye registration”; see claim 15 rejection above)
line 2 already introduced “an eye”
line 5 already introduced “a device that provides, in the opening, different optical elements”
line 1 already introduced “a measurement apparatus”
line 1 already introduced “a laser eye treatment”
lines 9-10 already introduced “a plurality of images”
line 14 already introduced “at least one reference image”
It is therefore unclear whether the items introduced in claim 24 and listed above are intended to refer to those listed for claim 15 above, or whether they newly establish and refer to distinct objects. For examination purposes, the items listed for claim 24 shall be read as directly corresponding to those listed for claim 15 above.
Regarding claim 26, line 1 recites “The measuring method as claimed in claim 15”, but claim 15 was not directed to a method. For examination purposes, the quoted excerpt shall be read as “The measuring method of claim 25”.
Further regarding claim 26, line 3 recites “(taking a time average of) the images of the images” which is plainly improper and unclear. For examination purposes (and following cues from the similar claim 17 – reciting “from the plurality of images or from a selection of the images”), the quoted excerpt shall be read as “(taking a time average of) the plurality of images or the selection of the plurality of images”.
Further regarding claim 26, lines 3-4 recite “the at least one first time period”, which lacks a proper antecedent basis. For examination purposes, this limitation shall be read as “the at least one time period”, as established in line 2 of claim 25.
Further regarding claim 26, line 2 recites “a selection of the plurality of images” and line 5 recites “a selection of the images”, causing ambiguity as to whether each “selection” refer to a distinct or common object. For examination purposes, each “selection” shall be treated as distinct from each other.
Further regarding claim 26, line 6 recites “a second time period including, before or after a time which…” is grammatically unclear and appears to be incompletely phrased.
Regarding claim 27, lines 5-7 recite “[the/said] device that provides different optical elements” which lack a proper antecedent basis – and whose “optical elements” appear to have already been introduced in claim 15, line 5. For examination purposes, the limitations shall be read as “[the/said] device that provides, in the opening, the different optical elements”, as earlier introduced in claim 15, line 5.
Claims not specifically addressed in the rejection above inherit the indefiniteness of the claim from which they depend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 15-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nauche and Boutinon (US 20190274539 A1, hereinafter “Nauche”) in view of Brownell (US 20150290032 A1, hereinafter “Brownell”).
Regarding claims 15 and 24, Nauche discloses (see FIGs. 1-3, ¶s 2-5, 27-29, 60-68, 77-79) a measuring apparatus that facilitates preparing a refraction treatment, comprising:
a device (“optometry device”) that facilitates determining a subjective refraction of an eye (E) (per ¶s 2-5; see also ¶ 87);
the device (“optometry device”) that facilitates determining the subjective refraction comprising a housing (casing 2) which is positionable in front of the eye (E) and which contains an opening (window 8) (per FIG. 2);
the housing (casing 2) comprising a device (refraction module 30) that provides, in the opening (window 8), different optical elements (lenses 32, 34, 36) for subjective visual compensation of refractive errors (per FIGs. 2-3, ¶s 60-68);
wherein
the housing includes an eye registration device (sensor module 40) that registers the eye through the opening (window 8);
the eye registration device (sensor module 40) comprising a recording apparatus (sensor 42) that records a plurality of images of the eye (E), wherein the recording apparatus (sensor 42) is positioned in front of the opening (window 8) and captures the images of the eye (E) through the opening (window 8); and
a computer analysing apparatus (processing unit) that analyses the eye registration and which is data-connected to the eye registration device (sensor module 40) and is provided and configured to use the plurality of images to ascertain at least one reference image for the refraction treatment.
(Regarding items D-F above, note ¶s 77-79 describe sensor module 40 capturing images of the individual’s eyes E – these then analyzed by a processing unit which “deduce[s] therefrom physiological or behavioural parameters… such as the gaze direction of the concerned individual’s eye E [and this occurring at a moment that may be taken to correspond to the reference image]”.)
Nauche does not explicitly disclose a refraction treatment that is a laser eye treatment.
Nauche and Brownell are commonly related to treatment of refractive errors of the eye.
Brownell explicitly discloses a refraction treatment that is a laser eye treatment. (Brownell discusses how various treatments can be based on objective refraction measures – similar to those of Nauche (“physiological or behavioural parameters”, “gaze”, etc.) cited above. Among these methods are laser ablation surgeries. See ¶s 2-5, 25-30, FIG. 1)
It would have therefore been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the teachings of Nauche and Brownell in order to provide laser eye treatments (i.e. for more permanent vision corrections and reduced dependency on corrective eyewear).
Regarding claims 16 and 25, modified Nauche discloses the measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 15 and the measuring method as claimed in claim 24.
Nauche further discloses (see ¶ 77) wherein the eye registration device (sensor module 40) is configured to trigger a recording of the plurality of images (“capture images”) over at least one time period (inevitably so).
Regarding claims 17 and 26, modified Nauche discloses the measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 16 and the measuring method as claimed in claim 25 (rather than claim 15, see Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 above).
Nauche further discloses:
wherein the analysing apparatus (processing unit) that analyzes the eye registration is configured to ascertain the reference image from the plurality of images or from a selection of the images by taking a time average of the images; or
wherein the analyzing apparatus (processing unit) that analyzes the eye registration is configured to ascertain the reference image from the images or a selection of the images recorded during a time period including, before or after a time which represents an optimal subjective visual compensation of refractive errors (i.e. by refraction module 30) when determining the subjective refraction of the eye (E); or
wherein the apparatus (processing unit) for analyzing the eye registration is configured to ascertain the reference image by including a tolerance range from a variation in the plurality of images; or
a combination of the foregoing.
(Regarding items A-C above,
refer again to ¶s 77-79, describing sensor module 40 capturing images of the individual’s eyes E – these then analyzed by a processing unit which “deduce[s] therefrom physiological or behavioural parameters… such as the gaze direction of the concerned individual’s eye E”.
naturally, analyzing time-varying images and extracting visual information must involve some tolerance/threshold pertaining to the evolving image features (e.g., evaluating gaze direction must involve some tolerance/error associated with measured eye displacements, or some analogous/alternative feature).
refer again also to ¶s 60-68, as well as to ¶s 87-91, discussing refraction module 30 performing subjective refraction tests and visual compensation)
Regarding claim 18, modified Nauche discloses the measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 17.
Nauche further discloses (see ¶ 77) wherein the selection of the images is from at least one time period (inevitably so).
Regarding claims 19 and 27, modified Nauche discloses the measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 15 and the measuring method as claimed in claim 24..
Nauche further discloses (see FIG. 2, ¶s 27-29, 77-79):
wherein the eye registration device (sensor module 40) comprises a mirror (beam splitter 50), at least a portion of which is arranged in the opening (window 8), and a camera (sensor 42) which is arranged in or on the housing (casing 2) and whose optical path is oriented at or orientable at the mirror (beam splitter 50); or
wherein the eye registration device comprises a camera which is provided in or on the device that provides different optical elements and which is positionable in the opening by operation of said device that provides different optical elements; or
wherein the eye registration device comprises a camera arranged on the housing in the opening; or
a combination of the foregoing.
Regarding claim 20, and further regarding claim 27, modified Nauche discloses the measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 15 and the measuring method as claimed in claim 24.
Nauche further discloses:
wherein the eye registration device (sensor module 40) comprises an apparatus that illuminates the eye (E) positioned in front of the opening (window 8), including illuminating the iris of the eye (E) (Per ¶ 77, sensor module 40 records images of eye E, which clearly requires source of illumination. See, e.g., regarding illuminator 60 described in ¶s 57-58, which may be freely grouped together with sensor module 40 and must certainly shed light on the iris among eye E’s many features); or
wherein the eye registration device (sensor module 40) comprises an apparatus that triggers the eye registration, in particular triggering the recording of the plurality of images (“capture images”; see again ¶ 77), manually, automatically and once or multiple times (inevitably so, as this exhausts all possible options); or
wherein the apparatus for analyzing the eye registration data-connected to the eye registration device is configured to analyze the image quality of the recorded images of the eye, to select at least one reference image for the laser treatment, to register anatomical reference points for the laser treatment, or
a combination of the foregoing.
Regarding claim 21, modified Nauche discloses the measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 15.
Nauche further discloses wherein the measuring apparatus comprises at least one element selected from a group consisting of a memory unit that stores data obtained by the measuring apparatus, a control device (control unit 38 of refraction module 30, see ¶ 67; consider also that some other control structures are implicitly required, e.g. to instruct and harmonize ¶s 77-78’s sensor module 40, processing module, etc) and an interface that transmits data obtained by the measuring apparatus.
Regarding claim 22, modified Nauche discloses the measuring apparatus as claimed in claim 15.
Brownell further discloses (see FIG. 4 and ¶ 58 providing a broadly relevant method 400 dealing with the planning/treatment aspect of the current claim. See also FIGs. {1, 2, 3} and associated ¶s {27-30, 34, 41-49} for physical details on laser, computer, and measurement apparatus structures. Those details of FIG. 4’s method 400 and FIG. 1’s laser system 10 are mapped below as being the most relevant):
a computerized planning device (treatment planner 440) that creates control data (“prescription”) for a treatment apparatus (i.e. laser system 10) that performs laser eye treatment, including refractive laser eye treatment,
the treatment apparatus (laser system 10) comprising a laser device (laser 12) that modifies a cornea of the eye (E) by application of laser beam (14) irradiation;
the planning device (treatment planner 440) being configured to determine control data (“prescription”) for the laser device (laser 12) of the treatment apparatus (laser system 10);
wherein
the planning device (treatment planner 440) comprises an interface for receiving data (“objective optical manifest refraction measurement data”) obtained by the measuring apparatus (manifest refraction instrument 420) for preparing a laser eye treatment, and
the planning device (treatment planner 440) is configured to use the data (“objective optical manifest refraction measurement data”) from the measuring apparatus (manifest refraction instrument 420) received via the interface to create the control data (“prescription”) for the treatment apparatus (laser system 10).
Regarding claim 23, modified Nauche discloses a planning device as claimed in claim 22.
Brownell further discloses (see again FIGs. 1-4; ¶s 27-30, 34, 41-49, 58) a treatment apparatus (laser system 10) that performs laser eye treatment, including refractive laser eye treatment, comprising:
a laser device (laser 12) that modifies the cornea of the eye (E) by laser irradiation;
wherein the treatment apparatus (laser system 10) comprises a planning device (treatment planner 440) for creating control data (“prescription”) for a treatment apparatus (laser system 10) for laser treatment.
Regarding claim 28, modified Nauche discloses the measuring method as claimed in claim 24.
Brownell also discloses the further comprising:
analyzing the image quality of the recorded images of the eye (E); or
selecting at least one reference image for the laser treatment; or
registering anatomical reference points for the laser treatment; or
a combination of the foregoing.
(Regarding items A-C above, see again ¶s 41-49, detailing wavefront measurements for mapping out eye features, including spot analysis of Hartmann-Shack images (i.e. spot qualities/features). Note ¶s 48-49 discloses varying fixation targets and dynamic determination of optical characteristics – including eye orientation – which will correspond to information extracted from reference image, as well as support determination of “wavefront sensor data relative to the optical issue [i.e. eye anatomy/reference points]”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WAI-GA D. HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1624. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 10AM - 6PM E.T..
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, Stephone Allen can be reached at (571) 272-2434. 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.
/W.D.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872