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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the visual information, at least one visual parameter, a simulator, cataractous lens, relatively clear areas, cataract densitometry, defocus curves, different images, predetermined focus distance, holograms with objects at a plurality of depths, CGH algorithms, at least one beam of a light, mechanical adjustments, binocular device, holographic stereograms, a first and second multifocal assessment, adjustable defocus curves, and artificially generated images must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1-20 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.
With respect to Claim 1, claim limitation “relatively clear areas being determined using measurement means comprising cataract densitometry or a pupil tracking unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The written description does not disclose specific structure and/or algorithms that perform the entire claimed function of determining relatively clear areas of a cataractous lens, for it fails to provide any cataract densitometry technique, algorithm or processing details regarding identifying the relatively clear areas, or how pupil tracking contributes to the determination being claimed. Since no corresponding structure or acts are linked to the entire function, the claim scope of Claim 1 cannot be ascertained by a person having ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2181, III.
Therefore, Claim(s) 1-14 and 16-20 are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
With respect to Claim 1 (and its dependents), the sentences recite “selectively configurable” and it is unclear how the phrase “selectively configurable” should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the claim limitations. “Selectively configurable” implies a hypothetical or conditional scenario without clarifying whether the configurability and/or claimed limitation is a necessary or optional aspect of the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device. This creates uncertainty about whether the claimed elements and limitations are required or merely illustrative. Thus, this phrase does not establish the relationship between the selectively configurable condition and the claimed invention.
With respect to Claim 1 (and its dependents), “a computer-generated holographic display to form at least one exit pupil, wherein each of the at least one exit pupil is independently sized and positioned relative to the position of the eye pupil” is unclear and ambiguous, for the claim limitation lacks objective boundaries for several claimed elements. In the instant case, the exit pupil in the CGH display is not defined and it is unclear what structure constitutes the exit pupil of a holographic system or how it is identified. Furthermore, the “independently sized and positioned” limitation does not make clear if the exit pupil is independently sized of other exit pupils, the eye pupil, system optics, etc. There are also no objective boundaries for how the sizes and positions are set or varied. Examiner submits that there is no reference frame, coordinate system, or metric provided for the relationship regarding the exit pupil(s) being sized and positioned relative to the position of an eye pupil. Since the claim limitations provide no objective boundaries for determining what structure meets these limitations, a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot ascertain the scope of the claim(s) with reasonable certainty.
With respect to Claim 1, the term “relatively clear areas of a cataractous lens” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively clear areas” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Claims 1-14 and 16-20 are rejected for being indefinite because the limitations lacks objective boundaries and clear scope. “The near-eye ophthalmic simulation device is configurable such that the at least one exit pupil is aligned with relatively clear areas of a cataractous lens” merely states a capability without specifying how or when alignment occurs, and thus, makes it unclear whether infringement requires actual alignment or just the ability to achieve it. Furthermore, “relatively clear areas of a cataractous lens” is subjective and utilizes a comparative term with no defined measurement criteria or threshold. A person having ordinary skill in the art would not know what qualifies as clear or how to identify such areas. The near-eye ophthalmic simulation device, at least one exit pupil, cataractous lens, measurement means, cataract densitometry, and pupil tracking unit are rendered indefinite by the use of the term “relatively clear areas.”
With respect to Claim 15, and notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008); see also United Carbon Co. v. Binney & Smith Co., 317 U.S. 228, 234 (1942) See MPEP §2173.05(g). In the current instance, the method steps in Claim 15 are defined by subjective assessments that do not provide a quantifiable, objective standards, and thus, these limitations are purely functional and result-oriented.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality within a near-eye ophthalmic simulation device and method of computer-generated holography.
Proper correction is required to ensure accuracy and consistency in the claims, for the language is so awkward that it renders the claims nearly incomprehensible. The primary purpose of the requirement of definiteness of claim language is to ensure that the scope of the claims is clear so the public is informed of the boundaries of what constitutes infringement of the patent. It is of utmost importance that patents issue with definite claims that clearly and precisely inform persons skilled in the art of the boundaries of protected subject matter. See MPEP § 2173.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
Claim 1-13 and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal et al. US 20170027437 A1 (herein after “Neal”) in view of Samec et al. US 20160270656 A1 (herein after “Samec”).
With respect to Claim 1, Neal discloses a near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye
imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) suitable for a use before cataract and/or refractive lens exchange operations (for planning cataract treatment in a patient's eye;
[0008]), comprising;
a pupil tracking unit (pupil retroreflection illuminator within iris imaging subsystem 40,
patient movement between measurements identified, as well as changes in eye itself including
those induced by measurement, such as changes in size of pupil, changes in pupil location,
etc.; [0055], [0082], [0117]) to detect a position of an eye pupil (direct disc of light toward
patient's eye, whereby disc of light reflected from reflective surfaces within eye, reflected light
transmitted by optical path 170 to detector 141; [0082], regarding iris registration images,
features available include position, size, and shape of pupil; [0117]),
a computer-generated holographic display (output video displayed on external monitor
for viewing by physicians or users, system 2 including data output ports to export patient
diagnostic reports to computer readable medium; [0054], iris registration images, optical relay
by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0134-135]) to form at least one exit pupil (outer iris
boundary, salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]), wherein each of
the at least one exit pupil (outer iris boundary, salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit
pupil; [0117], [0136]) is independently sized and positioned (regarding iris registration images,
features available include position, size and shape of outer iris boundary (OIB), salient iris
features i.e., landmarks and other features determined to be needed; [0117]) relative to the
position of the eye pupil ([0136]; fig. 12);
wherein each of the at least one exit pupil (outer iris boundary, salient iris features, etc.,
relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) is configured (via controller 60 and OCT subsystem;
[0055]) to create a projected pattern (plurality of scan patterns; [0012]) on a retina of a viewer
(e.g., retinal OCT scan pattern at or near location of retina; [0012], [0051]) and carries a visual
information (e.g., ocular biometry information, anterior and posterior corneal surface information,
etc.; [0016], [0150]) configured to simulate a post-operative vision (simulated optical quality
and/or visual performance provided, measuring post-operative eye characteristics; [0016], [0024], [0155]), wherein at least one visual parameter is selectively configurable within a
simulator (plurality of predetermined parameters selected e.g., dioptric power, anterior and
posterior radius, IOL thickness, etc.; [0016], [0151]), and,
the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement
system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configurable such that the at least one exit pupil (outer iris
boundary, salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) is aligned with
(maintaining eye of patient in suitable alignment with diagnostic system; [0052]) relatively clear
areas of a cataractous lens (crystalline lens 402, to obtain clear iris boundary, infrared light
source is directed onto retina; [0056], [0133]; fig. 5, fig. 12 having same components as fig. 5
assembly 100, but further comprising posterior corneal astigmatism assembly 900; [0129]), the
relatively clear areas being determined using measurement means (during diagnostic
measurements; [0052]) comprising a cataract densitometry (via SS-OCT i.e., swept source
optical coherence tomography system, Scheimpflug imager; [0057], [0093]) or a pupil tracking
unit (pupil retroreflection illuminator within iris imaging subsystem 40; [0055], [0082]).
Neal does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation(s): a holographic display.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Samec teaches methods and systems for
diagnosing and treating health ailments ([1419]), wherein an augmented reality/virtual reality
wearable device comprises a display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like
liquid crystals switching the effects of holographic diffraction gratings, configured to project light
to different or targeted portions of the eye of the wearer ([1581]). Samec further teaches the
augmented reality/virtual reality wearable device being configured to function as an optical
coherence tomography (OCT) system ([1995-2028]; fig. 23C), comprising wavefront
aberrometer functions ([2029-44]; fig. 27), an adjustable aperture ([1793]), and 2D or 3D
imaging being utilized in addition to detecting the amount of backscattered or reflected light
([1743]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before
the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the eye imaging and optical
measurement system of Neal to include the technical feature of adaptable, holographic
elements being utilized in a display for an augmented reality/virtual reality wearable device
configured to function as an optical coherence tomography system, for the purpose of displaying
3D images that accommodate a user’s eyes and providing automatic focus varying of projected
virtual content to allow for a more comfortable viewing of one or more images presented to the
user, and thus, allowing a user’s eye to function in a more natural manner, as taught by Samec
([1456]).
With respect to Claim 2, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1, wherein the at least one visual parameter selectively configurable (plurality of
predetermined parameters selected e.g., dioptric power, anterior and posterior radius, IOL
thickness, etc.; [0016], [0151]) is selected from the group consisting of a visual acuity, side
effects such as a halo and a glare, a contrast, defocus curves, and a depth perception (e.g.,
group consisting of dioptric power, anterior and posterior radius, IOL thickness, refractive index,
asphericity, toricity, echelette features, haptic angulation, and lens filter; [0016], [0151]).
With respect to Claim 3, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1, wherein each of exit pupil (outer iris boundary, salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s
exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) beams (figs. 5, 12) through the at least one exit pupil (outer iris
boundary, salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) carries the visual
information (e.g., ocular biometry information, anterior and posterior corneal surface information,
etc.; [0016], [0150]) corresponding to at least one of different perspective holograms (iris registration images, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0134-135]; Neal in
view of display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals switching
the effects of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec).
With respect to Claim 4, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 3, wherein the at least one of the different perspective holograms (iris registration images,
optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0134-135]; Neal in view of display
platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals switching the effects of
holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) is configured to be either two-dimensional or
three-dimensional (utilizing OCT subsystem and iris images via iris imaging subsystem 40 taken
simultaneously to improve three dimensional modeling of patient's eye and improved iris
registration of measurement data sets; [0123]).
With respect to Claim 5, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 3, wherein a beam (figs. 5, 12) through each of the exit pupil (outer iris boundary, salient
iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) beams (figs. 5, 12) is relayed (iris
registration images, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0134-135]; Neal in
view of display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals switching
the effects of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) using a different color or
wavelength (swept source wavelengths can be centered at wavelengths from 840 nm to 1310
nm, method to control accommodation is to provide patient with a task e.g., “click a button each
time the target includes the color purple” to insure that the subject is really looking and
concentrating on the target; [0057], [0118]), whereby an interference between the different
perspective holograms ([0117-118], [0134-135]) is avoided (light source 152 is a super luminescent laser, reducing speckle effects and improving images used for wavefront
measurements; [0084]).
With respect to Claim 6, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured such that different perspective holograms
(iris registration images, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0134-135]; Neal
in view of display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals switching
the effects of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) create different images on the
retina (retinal OCT scan pattern, each scan pattern being at different axial depth of patient's
eye; [0012], [0051]) and appear at a predetermined focus distance (via detectors 910, 920
located at different effective optical distances D1, D2 from eye, obtaining simultaneous images;
[0132]).
With respect to Claim 7, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured such that holograms with objects (optical
relay by holographic optical elements; [0134-135]; Neal in view of display platform that includes
adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals switching the effects of holographic diffraction
gratings; [1581]; Samec) at a plurality of depths (each scan pattern being at different axial depth
of patient's eye; [0012], [0051]) are rendered simultaneously (obtaining simultaneous images via
detectors 910, 920; [0132]) using a computer generated holographic (CGH) display (output
video displayed on external monitor for viewing by physicians or users, system 2 including data
output ports to export patient diagnostic reports to computer readable medium, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0054], [0134-135]; Neal in view of display platform that includes
adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals switching the effects of holographic diffraction
gratings; [1581]; Samec) and at least two of the at least one exit pupil (outer iris boundary,
salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]).
With respect to Claim 8, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured to correct (plurality of corrective
procedure; [0024], [0162]) for refractive errors (adjusting refractive refraction in eye of patient,
measurement of refractive error; [0024], [0067], [0162]) including astigmatism (via posterior
corneal astigmatism assembly 900; [0130]) using CGH algorithms (e.g., methods and
techniques for compiling top put graphic mapping of refractive errors; [0067]; Neal in view of
display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals switching the effects
of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec).
With respect to Claim 9, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured to correct (plurality of corrective
procedure; [0024], [0162]) for corneal aberrations (via posterior corneal astigmatism assembly
900; [0130]) using CGH algorithms (e.g., methods and techniques for compiling top put graphic
mapping of refractive errors; [0067]; Neal in view of display platform that includes adaptable
optics elements, like liquid crystals switching the effects of holographic diffraction gratings;
[1581]; Samec).
With respect to Claim 10, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured to align (maintaining eye of patient in
suitable alignment with diagnostic system; [0052]) the at least one exit pupil (outer iris boundary,
salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) with the relatively clear areas
of the cataractous lens (crystalline lens 402, to obtain clear iris boundary, infrared light source is
directed onto retina; [0056], [0133]; fig. 5) by shaping and steering (e.g., assembly 100 to direct
light beams from one or more light sources to the first optical system 170; [0066]) at least one
beam of a light (e.g., light beam 401; [0098]; fig. 5) or using mechanical adjustments (e.g.,
optical system arranged so movement pattern of scan mirrors provides lateral motion across
retina to determine shape of retina; [0099]).
With respect to Claim 11, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 3, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured such that the exit pupil (outer iris
boundary, salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) beams (figs. 5, 12)
from the at least one exit pupil (outer iris boundary, salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s
exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) do not interfere with each other, whereby a coherent interference is
avoided (light source 152 is a super luminescent laser, reducing speckle effects and improving
images used for wavefront measurements; [0084]).
With respect to Claim 12, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical surement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured such that a size (regarding iris registration images, features available include position, size and shape of outer iris boundary (OIB), salient
iris features i.e., landmarks and other features determined to be needed; [0117]) of the at least
one exit pupil (outer iris boundary, salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117],
[0136]) is smaller than 2.0 mm (beam diameter on cornea is between 1 and 2 mm, light travels
through cornea and focuses onto retina of eye, predetermined location is less than 2 mm from
apex 407 of cornea or less than 1 mm; [0089], [0134-136]).
With respect to Claim 13, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured such that the at least one exit pupil (outer
iris boundary, salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) is displayed in
a time-sequential manner (assembly 191 of OCT subsystem 190 in optical measurement
system 1 comprising detection device 220 employing one of time domain, frequency, or single
point detection techniques, diagnostic reports stored on computer readable medium can be
accessed at a later time for any suitable purpose; [0054], [0097]; fig. 4).
With respect to Claim 15, Neal discloses a method of computer-generated holography
suitable for a use in simulating (output video displayed on external monitor for viewing by
physicians or users, system 2 including data output ports to export patient diagnostic reports to
computer readable medium, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0054], [0134-135];
Neal in view of display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals
switching the effects of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) a post-operative
outcome (measuring post-operative eye characteristics; [0024], [0161]) in candidates of cataract
(for planning cataract treatment in a patient's eye; [0008]) and/or refractive lens exchange operations (via eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]), comprising
steps of:
a first multifocal assessment (patient focus maintained on aerial image 182 during
measurement to maintain eye in fixed focal position; [0119]), wherein a person is subjected to
first multi-depth, three-dimensional holographic images (utilizing OCT subsystem and iris
images via iris imaging subsystem 40 taken simultaneously to improve three dimensional
modeling of patient's eye and improved iris registration of measurement data sets, iris
registration images, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0123], [0134-135];
Neal in view of display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals
switching the effects of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) with first adjustable
defocus curves (step 505 comprises activating the target fixation subsystem for patient fixation
on target; [0121]) for a first near, intermediate, and far vision (OCT scan includes scan at each
or one or more locations within eye of patient; [0120]),
a visual acuity and retinal assessment (step 555 comprises operating z-scan device to
set OCT location at location at or near retina and performing OCT Scan with OCT Subsystem;
[0121]), wherein the person is subjected to a visual acuity chart (contrast sensitivity
measurements, visual acuity when maximum contrast is considered; [0173]), an astigmatism
correction (via posterior corneal astigmatism assembly 900; [0130]), and other an aberration
corrections (plurality of corrective procedure; [0024], [0162]) as well as, and an assessment of a
foveal vision (postoperative condition of patient's eye or vision is modeled based on one or
more selected from the group consisting of pre-operative measurements obtained from optical
measurement instrument 1, dioptric power, anterior and posterior radius, IOL thickness,
asphericity, toricity, echelette design, etc. factoring into foveal image quality; [0019], [0146],
[0151]),
a contrast sensitivity assessment (contrast sensitivity measurements, visual acuity when
maximum contrast is considered; [0173]), wherein the person is subjected to the visual acuity chart ([0173]) and images (iris images via iris imaging subsystem 40; [0123]) with adjustable
dimming and contrast levels (via modulation transfer function, function is closely related to
contrast sensitivity measurements, also related to visual acuity when maximum contrast is
considered; [0173]),
a side-effect assessment (e.g., when a toric spectacle lens is placed in front of a
patient's eye, it introduces distortion into the image the patient perceives; [0131]), wherein the
person is subjected to a set of artificially generated images with diffractive and/or multifocal
surface artefacts such as a halo and a glare are superposed thereon with varying levels of a
severity (operator interface also used to modify, distort, or transform any of the displayed
images; [0061]), and
a second multifocal assessment (step 570 comprises obtaining an iris image using iris
imaging subsystem 40 (for 3D model); [0121]), whereby the person is subjected to second multidepth, three-dimensional holographic images (utilizing OCT subsystem and iris images via iris imaging subsystem 40 taken simultaneously to improve three dimensional modeling of patient's eye and improved iris registration of measurement data sets, iris registration images, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0123], [0134-135]; Neal in view of display
platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals switching the effects of
holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) with second adjustable defocus curves (step
515 comprises activating the target fixation system to move the target to an optimum position;
[0121]) for a second near, intermediate, and far vision (OCT scan includes scan at each or one
or more locations within eye of patient; [0120]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation,
would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to
be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device
described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136
(Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02.
With respect to Claim 16, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 12, wherein the size (regarding iris registration images, features available include position,
size and shape of outer iris boundary (OIB), salient iris features i.e., landmarks and other
features determined to be needed; [0117]) of the at least one exit pupil (outer iris boundary,
salient iris features, etc., relative to eye’s exit pupil; [0117], [0136]) is 1.2 mm (beam diameter on
cornea is between 1 and 2 mm, light travels through cornea and focuses onto retina of eye,
predetermined location is less than 2 mm from apex 407 of cornea or less than 1 mm; [0089],
[0134-136]).
With respect to Claim 17, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 2, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured such that different perspective holograms
(iris registration images, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0134-135]; Neal
in view of display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals switching
the effects of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) create different images on the
retina (retinal OCT scan pattern, each scan pattern being at different axial depth of patient's
eye; [0012], [0051]) and appear at a predetermined focus distance (via detectors 910, 920
located at different effective optical distances D1, D2 from eye, obtaining simultaneous images;
[0132]).
With respect to Claim 18, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 3, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured such that the different perspective
holograms (iris registration images, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0134-
135]; Neal in view of display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals
switching the effects of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) create different images
on the retina (retinal OCT scan pattern, each scan pattern being at different axial depth of
patient's eye; [0012], [0051]) and appear at a predetermined focus distance (via detectors 910,
920 located at different effective optical distances D1, D2 from eye, obtaining simultaneous
images; [0132]).
With respect to Claim 19, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 4, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured such that the different perspective
holograms (iris registration images, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0134-
135]; Neal in view of display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals
switching the effects of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) create different images
on the retina (retinal OCT scan pattern, each scan pattern being at different axial depth of
patient's eye; [0012], [0051]) and appear at a predetermined focus distance (via detectors 910,
920 located at different effective optical distances D1, D2 from eye, obtaining simultaneous
images; [0132]).
With respect to Claim 20, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to claim 5, wherein the near-eye ophthalmic simulation device (eye imaging and optical
measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) is configured such that the different perspective
holograms (iris registration images, optical relay by holographic optical elements; [0117], [0134-
135]; Neal in view of display platform that includes adaptable optics elements, like liquid crystals
switching the effects of holographic diffraction gratings; [1581]; Samec) create different images
on the retina (retinal OCT scan pattern, each scan pattern being at different axial depth of
patient's eye; [0012], [0051]) and appear at a predetermined focus distance (via detectors 910,
920 located at different effective optical distances D1, D2 from eye, obtaining simultaneous
images; [0132]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neal et al. US 20170027437 A1 (herein after “Neal”) in view of Samec et al. US 20160270656 A1 (herein after “Samec”) and Simmons US 20200310537 A1.
With respect to Claim 14, Neal in view of Samec teaches the near-eye ophthalmic
simulation device (eye imaging and optical measurement system 1; [0008], [0051]) according to
claim 1.
Neal in view of Samec does not explicitly teach the following limitation(s): wherein the
near-eye ophthalmic simulation device is a binocular device configured to display holographic
stereograms to simulate a three-dimensional vision.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Simmons teaches modifying binocular overlap
of displayed images ([0482]), wherein 3-D capture cameras captures stereoscopic images that
are displayed to the eye via a worn display ([0464]). Simmons further teaches POI-pixel
holograms 904 within an expanding beam of a laser and divergent lens assembly 903 that send
light towards an eye 106 when activated ([0458]; fig. 9b). The 3-D capture cameras are utilized
in applications towards aiding human perception ([0460]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the eye imaging and optical measurement system of Neal in view of Samec to include the technical feature of binocular devices displaying holographic stereoscopic images, for the purpose of stereoscopic reproduction, the option of eliminating a natural scene view, providing eye accommodation-related depth perception, providing the advantage of easily visualizing very much larger individual or even singular computer generated holographic EO ring-sets, and providing a genuine memory zoom, as taught by Simmons ([0457-458], [0464], [0482]). Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because Neal explicitly teaches that various variations can be made and remain within the concept without departing from the spirit or scope, and that such variations would become clear to one of ordinary skill in the art ([0178]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Belenkii et al. US 20180084232 A1 discloses optical see-through head worn display similar to that of the claimed invention. Chaum et al. US 20150277123 A1 discloses near to eye display and appliance substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Fernandez Martinez et al. US 20120154742 A1 discloses ophthalmic instrument for the measurement of ocular refraction and visual simulation substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 09 May 2026
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights