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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 01/15/2026 and 06/14/2026 are being considered by the examiner.
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on PRO 63/290,120 dated 12/16/2021.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted are acceptable for examination purposes.
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 1-3, 5-6, 11-13, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2020060486 A1), as cited in the IDS, and further in view of Bagherinia (US 20160317012 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yang teaches, in Figs. 2 and 6A: a method of assessing a condition of a patient's eye (“Processor 65 may be capable of executing application 70 for detecting and assessing eye pathologies by analyzing captured images and/or videos of eye 25 using mobile eye imaging device 10”; page 9 lines 10-12), the method comprising:
using a slit illuminator (“Housing assembly 115 may include a slit image generator, such as an optical slit 60”; page 7 line 21, Fig. 2), illuminating the patient's eye with a first slit illumination beam (“through which incident light may propagate along an optical axis 64”; page 7 line 22, Fig. 2) from a first viewpoint (slit image 60 propagates along optical path 64 and illuminates the eye, Fig. 2); and
using a camera (“camera 55”; page 7 line 29, Fig. 2) and during said illuminating, imaging the patient's eye from a second viewpoint different from the first viewpoint (patients eye is imaged from cellphone camera 55, which is located at a different viewpoint than the illuminator 60), said imaging including generating a first image showing a first line element indicative of a reflection of the first slit illumination beam on an iris of the patient's eye (“a reflection 325 from iris 35 may appear as a yellow colored band”; page 16 lines 20-25, Fig. 6A) and a second line element indicative of a reflection of the first slit illumination beam within a cornea of the patient's eye (“a reflection 320 from cornea 305 may appear as a blue colored band”; page 16 lines 20-25, Fig. 6A).
However, Yang fails to teach: using a controller, fitting first and second lines to a respective one of the first and second line elements in the first image, identifying a first intersection of the first and second lines; determining a first angle value indicative of an angle formed between the first and second lines at the first intersection; and assessing the condition of the patient's eye based on the first angle value.
In a related invention in the field of eye screening using a slit lamp, Bagherinia teaches: using a controller (“processors (221)”; [0055], Fig. 2), fitting first and second lines (“iridocorneal angle (1401)”; [0043], see Fig. 14 which shows a fit of the elements 1404 and 1403) to a respective one of the first (“iris (1404)”; [0034], Fig. 14) and second line (“(1403) is the posterior corneal surface”; [0034], Fig. 14) elements in the first image (the first and second line elements are shown in Fig. 14. The image captures the reflection of the beam off the eye in order to image elements 1404 and 1403),
identifying a first intersection of the first and second lines; determining a first angle value indicative of an angle formed between the first and second lines at the first intersection (“The procedure is to estimate the approximate center position of the angle which is essentially the intersection of the posterior surface with the anterior iris surface”; [0107], Figs. 26 and 27); and
assessing the condition of the patient's eye based on the first angle value (“The posterior corneal surface and iris segmentations can also be used for semi- or fully-automatic angle measurements (e.g., the iridocorneal angle). Other useful measurements can be geometric metrics of any surface, distance, volume, or interface, applicable to the diagnosis of pathological conditions”; [0009]).
Bagherinia further teaches this configuration such that “The procedure is to estimate the approximate center position of the angle which is essentially the intersection of the posterior surface with the anterior iris surface by minimizing the watershed function of the distance-transform image. This image is computed based on the binarized image of the angle image. The approach has few steps and avoids angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image.” (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Bagherinia to provide a device capable of using a controller, fitting first and second lines to a respective one of the first and second line elements in the first image, identifying a first intersection of the first and second lines; determining a first angle value indicative of an angle formed between the first and second lines at the first intersection; and assessing the condition of the patient's eye based on the first angle value, for the purpose of minimizing steps and avoiding angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Regarding claim 2, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 1. Yang further teaches: wherein the first slit illumination beam is directly focused on the patient's eye (“in a slit lamp mode having incident light in a slit lamp illumination pattern leaving the mobile imaging device at an angle f=45 degrees and coupled to the patient’s eye obliquely may allow capture of anterior segment features used for evaluating acute primary angle closure. The position and/or orientation of the incident light on the subject’s eye may change dynamically as the user of the device (e.g., ophthalmologist) moves the device with the user’s hand.”; page 15 lines 3-8, “Fig. 6A schematically illustrates a first embodiment of a captured image of eye 25”; page 16 line 34).
Regarding claim 3, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 1. Yang fails to explicitly teach: the first line is one of curved and linear, and the second line is linear.
However, in a related invention in the field of eye screening using a slit lamp, Bagherinia teaches: the first line is one of curved and linear, and the second line is linear (see Figs. 26 and 27 in which the two lines are linear).
Bagherinia further teaches this configuration such that “The procedure is to estimate the approximate center position of the angle which is essentially the intersection of the posterior surface with the anterior iris surface by minimizing the watershed function of the distance-transform image. This image is computed based on the binarized image of the angle image. The approach has few steps and avoids angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image.” (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Bagherinia to provide a device in which the first line is one of curved and linear, and the second line is linear, for the purpose of minimizing steps and avoiding angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Regarding claim 5, the closet art Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 1. Yang further teaches in Fig. 6B: illuminating the patient's eye with a second slit illumination beam (Fig. 6B) having a third viewpoint different from the first viewpoint (Fig. 6A), and imaging the patient's eye during said illuminating with the second slit illumination beam (Yang teaches to the idea that the slit may be moved in order to capture an alternative angle of the eye in Fig. 6B: “The user may direct the slit lamp beam in any suitable position and/or orientation onto eye 25, which may generate multiple reflected lines in multiple respective colors”; page 17 lines 14-16), said imaging generating a second image showing a third line element indicative of a reflection of the second slit illumination beam on the iris of the patient's eye (“a reflection 325 from iris 35”; page 17 lines 5-15, Fig. 6B) and a fourth line element indicative of a reflection of the second slit illumination beam within the cornea of the patient's eye (“a reflection 320 from cornea 305”; page 17 lines 5-15, Fig. 6B).
However, Yang fails to specifically teach the method further comprising repeating said fitting, said identifying and said determining for said second image, thereby outputting a second angle value on which said assessing is further based.
In a related invention in the field of eye screening using a slit lamp, Bagherinia teaches: the method further comprising repeating said fitting, said identifying and said determining for said second image, thereby outputting a second angle value on which said assessing is further based (“The procedure is to estimate the approximate center position of the angle which is essentially the intersection of the posterior surface with the anterior iris surface”; [0107], Figs. 26 and 27).
Bagherinia further teaches this configuration such that “The procedure is to estimate the approximate center position of the angle which is essentially the intersection of the posterior surface with the anterior iris surface by minimizing the watershed function of the distance-transform image. This image is computed based on the binarized image of the angle image. The approach has few steps and avoids angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image.” (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Bagherinia to provide a device further comprising repeating said fitting, said identifying and said determining for said second image, thereby outputting a second angle value on which said assessing is further based, for the purpose of minimizing steps and avoiding angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Regarding claim 6, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 1. Yang further teaches in Figs. 2 and 6B: the first slit illumination beam has a first orientation with respect to the slit illuminator (“through which incident light may propagate along an optical axis 64”; page 7 line 22, Fig. 2),
the method further comprising illuminating the patient's eye with a second slit illumination beam having a second orientation being different from the first orientation, and imaging the patient's eye during said illuminating with the second slit illumination beam (Yang teaches to the idea that the slit may be moved in order to capture an alternative angle of the eye in Fig. 6B: “The user may direct the slit lamp beam in any suitable position and/or orientation onto eye 25, which may generate multiple reflected lines in multiple respective colors”; page 17 lines 14-16),
said imaging generating a second image showing a third line element indicative of a reflection of the second slit illumination beam on the iris of the patient's eye (“a reflection 325 from iris 35”; page 17 lines 5-15, Fig. 6B) and a fourth line element indicative of a reflection of the second slit illumination beam within the cornea of the patient's eye (“a reflection 320 from cornea 305”; page 17 lines 5-15, Fig. 6B.
However, Yang fails to teach: the method further comprising repeating said fitting, said identifying and said determining for said second image, thereby outputting a second angle value on which said assessing is further based.
In a related invention in the field of eye screening using a slit lamp, Bagherinia teaches: the method further comprising repeating said fitting, said identifying and said determining for said second image, thereby outputting a second angle value on which said assessing is further based (“The procedure is to estimate the approximate center position of the angle which is essentially the intersection of the posterior surface with the anterior iris surface”; [0107], Figs. 26 and 27).
Bagherinia further teaches this configuration such that “The procedure is to estimate the approximate center position of the angle which is essentially the intersection of the posterior surface with the anterior iris surface by minimizing the watershed function of the distance-transform image. This image is computed based on the binarized image of the angle image. The approach has few steps and avoids angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image.” (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Bagherinia to provide a device further comprising repeating said fitting, said identifying and said determining for said second image, thereby outputting a second angle value on which said assessing is further based, for the purpose of minimizing steps and avoiding angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Regarding claim 11, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 1. Yang further teaches: further comprising determining a pixel count indicative of a number of pixels extending between the first and second lines, wherein said assessing is further based on said pixel count (“the processor may be configured to estimate intensities of the reflected light in the colored bands by counting the pixels in the captured image for each colored band”; page 2 lines 29-31). However, Yang fails to explicitly state that this pixel counting is used to determine edges of the bands.
However, in a related invention in the field of eye screening using a slit lamp, Bagherinia teaches: further comprising determining a pixel count indicative of a number of pixels extending between the first and second lines, wherein said assessing is further based on said pixel count (“Statistical metrics could include statistical dispersion and/or moments such as mode, mean, median, skewness, kurtosis, of distributions of pixel values in desired sub-images.”; [0068], see also [0061]).
Bagherinia further teaches this configuration such that “To enable the identification of structures within the image data, edge detection (302) is then performed on the B-scan image or its reduced-size version. This procedure ultimately results in an edge image where a pixel having a “1” value represents an edge (see, e.g., Canny 1986)” (Bagherinia, [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Bagherinia to provide a device capable of determining a pixel count indicative of a number of pixels extending between the first and second lines, wherein said assessing is further based on said pixel count, for the identification of structures within the image data (Bagherinia, [0061]).
Regarding claim 12, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 11. Yang further teaches: wherein said controller has a trained engine performing at least one of said fitting, said identifying, said determining and said assessing (“the mobile eye imaging device, such as a smartphone camera, for example, may include a processor (e.g., the processor of the smartphone) configured to execute a code such as an application (e.g., app) for analyzing the captured images of the eye, so as to determine if the eye is normal or dysfunctional”; page 6 lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 13, Yang teaches, in Figs. 2 and 6A: a system for assessing a condition of a patient's eye (“Processor 65 may be capable of executing application 70 for detecting and assessing eye pathologies by analyzing captured images and/or videos of eye 25 using mobile eye imaging device 10”; page 9 lines 10-12), the system comprising:
a frame (“housing assembly 115”; page 7 line 21, Fig. 2);
a slit illuminator mounted to the frame (“Housing assembly 115 may include a slit image generator, such as an optical slit 60”; page 7 line 21, Fig. 2) and having a first viewpoint (“moves the slit across the subject’s eye”; page 16 line 22), the slit illuminator being configured for illuminating the patient's eye with a slit illumination beam (“through which incident light may propagate along an optical axis 64”; page 7 line 22, Fig. 2);
a camera (“camera 55”; page 7 line 29, Fig. 2) mounted to the frame (115) and having a second viewpoint different from the first viewpoint (“moves the slit across the subject’s eye”; page 16 line 22, the moving of the slit across the eye creates multiple different viewpoints), the camera (55) being configured for imaging the patient's eye during said illuminating (“the ophthalmologist may snap a picture or film a video (e.g., capture images) of eye 25 using imaging camera 55”; page 15 lines 21-22), said camera generating a first image showing a first line element indicative of a reflection of the slit illumination beam on an iris of the patient's eye (“a reflection 325 from iris 35 may appear as a yellow colored band”; page 17 lines 20-25, Fig. 6A) and a second line element indicative of a reflection of the slit illumination beam within a cornea of the patient's eye (“a reflection 320 from cornea 305 may appear as a blue colored band”; page 16 lines 20-25, Fig. 6A).
However, Yang fails to teach: a controller communicatively coupled to the camera, the controller having a processor and a memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the processor perform the steps of: fitting first and second lines to a respective one of the first and second line elements in the first image, identifying a first intersection of the first and second lines; determining a first angle value indicative of an angle formed between the first and second lines at the first intersection; and assessing the condition of the patient's eye based on the first angle value.
In a related invention in the field of eye screening using a slit lamp, Bagherinia teaches: a controller (“processors (221)”; [0055], Fig. 2) communicatively coupled to the camera (“The output from the detector is supplied to one or more processors (221)”; [0055]), the controller (221) having a processor and a memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the processor perform the steps of (“The processing and storing functions may be localized within the OCT instrument or functions may be performed on an external processing unit to which the collected data is transferred”; [0056]):
fitting first and second lines (“iridocorneal angle (1401)”; [0043], see Fig. 14 which shows a fit of the elements 1404 and 1403) to a respective one of the first (“iris (1404)”; [0034], Fig. 14) and second line elements (“(1403) is the posterior corneal surface”; [0034], Fig. 14) in the first image (the first and second line elements are shown in Fig. 14. The image captures the reflection of the beam off the eye in order to image elements 1404 and 1403),
identifying a first intersection of the first and second lines; determining a first angle value indicative of an angle formed between the first and second lines at the first intersection (“The procedure is to estimate the approximate center position of the angle which is essentially the intersection of the posterior surface with the anterior iris surface”; [0107], Figs. 26 and 27); and
assessing the condition of the patient's eye based on the first angle value (“The posterior corneal surface and iris segmentations can also be used for semi- or fully-automatic angle measurements (e.g., the iridocorneal angle). Other useful measurements can be geometric metrics of any surface, distance, volume, or interface, applicable to the diagnosis of pathological conditions”; [0009]).
Bagherinia further teaches this configuration such that “The procedure is to estimate the approximate center position of the angle which is essentially the intersection of the posterior surface with the anterior iris surface by minimizing the watershed function of the distance-transform image. This image is computed based on the binarized image of the angle image. The approach has few steps and avoids angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image.” (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Bagherinia to provide a device capable of a controller communicatively coupled to the camera, the controller having a processor and a memory having stored thereon instructions that when executed by the processor perform the steps of: fitting first and second lines to a respective one of the first and second line elements in the first image, identifying a first intersection of the first and second lines; determining a first angle value indicative of an angle formed between the first and second lines at the first intersection; and assessing the condition of the patient's eye based on the first angle value, for the purpose of minimizing steps and avoiding angle segmentation or complicated analysis of the image (Bagherinia, [0107]).
Regarding claim 19, Yang and Bagherinia teach the system of claim 13. Yang further teaches: further comprising determining a pixel count indicative of a number of pixels extending between the first and second lines, wherein said assessing is further based on said pixel count (“the processor may be configured to estimate intensities of the reflected light in the colored bands by counting the pixels in the captured image for each colored band”; page 2 lines 29-31). However, Yang fails to explicitly state that this pixel counting is used to determine edges of the bands.
However, in a related invention in the field of eye screening using a slit lamp, Bagherinia teaches: further comprising determining a pixel count indicative of a number of pixels extending between the first and second lines, wherein said assessing is further based on said pixel count (“Statistical metrics could include statistical dispersion and/or moments such as mode, mean, median, skewness, kurtosis, of distributions of pixel values in desired sub-images.”; [0068], see also [0061]).
Bagherinia further teaches this configuration such that “To enable the identification of structures within the image data, edge detection (302) is then performed on the B-scan image or its reduced-size version. This procedure ultimately results in an edge image where a pixel having a “1” value represents an edge (see, e.g., Canny 1986)” (Bagherinia, [0061]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang to incorporate the teachings of Bagherinia to provide a device capable of determining a pixel count indicative of a number of pixels extending between the first and second lines, wherein said assessing is further based on said pixel count, for the identification of structures within the image data (Bagherinia, [0061]).
Regarding claim 20, Yang and Bagherinia teach the system of claim 13. Yang further teaches: wherein said controller has a trained engine performing at least one of said fitting, said identifying, said determining and said assessing (“the mobile eye imaging device, such as a smartphone camera, for example, may include a processor (e.g., the processor of the smartphone) configured to execute a code such as an application (e.g., app) for analyzing the captured images of the eye, so as to determine if the eye is normal or dysfunctional”; page 6 lines 3-7).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2020060486 A1), as cited in the IDS, and Bagherinia (US 20160317012 A1), as in claim 1 and further in view of Razali (WO 2021006815 A1), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 7, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 1. Yang fails to teach: determining a thickness of the cornea based on a thickness of the second line element.
However, in a related invention in the field of eye screening using a slit lamp, Razali teaches: determining a thickness of the cornea based on a thickness of the second line element (cornea slit Fig. 9) (“Van Herick grading may be used to access peripheral anterior chamber depth at the slit lamp. This is a quick way to gauge the width of the angle that involves bringing the slit beam at an angle of 60 degrees onto the cornea just anterior to the corneal limbus (the border of the cornea and the sclera). A physician may estimate the anterior chamber depth between the peripheral iris and the corneal endothelium and compares it to the overall thickness of the cornea”; [0083], Fig. 9 illustrates the cornea as a reflection of the slit lamp. Para [0083] suggests that the physician can determine the overall thickness of the cornea based on the image).
Furthermore, Razali teaches this configuration such that “The images obtained from an eye examination for narrow angle glaucoma may be labeled to detect cornea slit and iris slit using the computer program module for image segmentation” (Razali, [0083]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Razali to provide a device capable of determining a thickness of the cornea based on a thickness of the second line element, for the examination for narrow angle glaucoma (Razali, [0083]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2020060486 A1), as cited in the IDS, and Bagherinia (US 20160317012 A1) as in claim 1, and further in view of Ono (US 20220386868 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 11. Yang and Bagherinia fail to teach: further comprising identifying a second intersection of the first and second lines different from the first intersection and determining a second angle value indicative of an angle formed between the first and second lines at the second intersection.
However, in a related invention in the field of ophthalmic apparatuses, Ono teaches in Figs. 11A and 11B: identifying a second intersection of the first and second lines different from the first intersection and determining a second angle value indicative of an angle formed between the first and second lines at the second intersection (“The displayed information 410 shown in FIG. 11A presents, on the anterior segment image obtained in the step S7, the measurement positions and the measured values of the corner angle parameters”; [0203], Fig. 11A shows that both sides of the cornea can be measured using the intersection of the fitted lines).
Furthermore, Ono teaches this configuration such that “A corner angle parameter is used as an important index (important indicator, important information) for diagnosis of glaucoma, especially diagnosis of angle closure glaucoma” (Ono, [0186]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Ono to provide a device in which a second intersection of the first and second lines different from the first intersection and determining a second angle value indicative of an angle formed between the first and second lines at the second intersection, for the purpose of detecting both angles of anterior chamber in order to use the measurement an index for diagnosis of glaucoma (Ono, [0186]).
Claims 8-10 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2020060486 A1), as cited in the IDS, and Bagherinia (US 20160317012 A1) as in claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Walsh (US 20210386285 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 1. Yang fails to teach: generating at least one of an iris three- dimensional (3D) model and a cornea 3D model based at least on the first angle value.
However, in a related invention in the field of eye OCT ophthalmic testing, Walsh teaches: generating at least one of an iris three-dimensional (3D) model and a cornea 3D model based at least on the first angle value (“the OCT-based ophthalmic testing center system can be configured to perform OBM scans on an anterior region of the eye (for example, using 3D raster scans or radially oriented B-scans) to detect and quantify ophthalmic conditions in the cornea, anterior chamber and angle, such as keratic precipitates, anterior chamber cell or flare, or iris neovascularization (with the aid of Doppler OCT).”; [0385]).
Walsh further teaches this configuration such that “OBM scans of the crystalline lens can enable more objective assessments of cataract progression (for example, by monitoring the lens thickness and curvature or by comparing lens opacity and reflectivity between scans). OBM scans can also be used to quantify axial length measurements and monitor posterior capsular opacification and post-operative intraocular lens position” (Walsh, [0385]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Walsh to provide a device capable of generating at least one of an iris three-dimensional (3D) model and a cornea 3D model based at least on the first angle value, for the purpose of using OBM scans to enable more objective assessments of pathologies (Walsh, [0385]).
Regarding claim 9, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 1. Yang fails to explicitly teach: wherein said assessing includes matching the first angle value to the condition of the patient's eye based on reference data associating reference angle values to corresponding reference eye conditions.
However, in a related invention in the field of eye OCT ophthalmic testing, Walsh teaches: wherein said assessing includes matching the first angle value (“data received from the main body 106”; [0191]) to the condition of the patient's eye based on reference data associating reference angle values (”data stored in the disease risk assessment/diagnosis module 808”; [0191]) to corresponding reference eye conditions (“the scan control and analysis module 824 is configured to compare the data received from the main body 106 to the data stored in the disease risk assessment/diagnosis module 808 in order to generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user; [0191], “The terms “eye scan,” “scanning the eye,” or “scan the eyes,” as used herein, are broad interchangeable terms that generally refer to the measurement of any part, substantially all, or all of the eye, including but not limited to the pre-cornea, the cornea, the retina, the eye lens, the iris, the vitreous body, the anterior chamber, the anterior chamber angle, the optic nerve, or any other tissue or nerve related to the eye”; [0147]).
Furthermore, Walsh teaches this configuration such that “In certain embodiments, the scan control and analysis module 824 uses historical images and/or scans of a specific user to compare with current images and/or scans of the same user to detect changes in the eyes of the user. In certain embodiments, the scan control and analysis module 824 uses the detected changes to help generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user” (Walsh, [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Walsh to provide a device wherein said assessing includes matching the first angle value to the condition of the patient's eye based on reference data associating reference angle values to corresponding reference eye conditions, for the purpose of detecting changes to help generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user (Walsh, [0191]).
Regarding claim 10, Yang and Bagherinia teach the method of claim 9. Yang fails to explicitly teach: wherein the reference angle values originate from reference measurements performed at the first and second viewpoints.
However, in a related invention in the field of eye OCT ophthalmic testing, Walsh teaches: wherein the reference angle values originate from reference measurements (“the scan control and analysis module 824 uses historical images and/or scans”; [0191]) performed at the first and second viewpoints (first illumination viewpoint being from light source 202 (para [0280]) and second imaging viewpoint being data acquisition device 202 (para [0280]), see Fig. 3A).
Furthermore, Walsh teaches this configuration such that “In certain embodiments, the scan control and analysis module 824 uses historical images and/or scans of a specific user to compare with current images and/or scans of the same user to detect changes in the eyes of the user. In certain embodiments, the scan control and analysis module 824 uses the detected changes to help generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user” (Walsh, [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Walsh to provide a device wherein the reference angle values originate from reference measurements performed at the first and second viewpoints, for the purpose of detecting changes to help generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user (Walsh, [0191]).
Regarding claim 17, Yang and Bagherinia teach the system of claim 13. Yang fails to explicitly teach: wherein said assessing includes matching the first angle value to the condition of the patient's eye based on reference data associating reference angle values to corresponding reference eye conditions.
However, in a related invention in the field of eye OCT ophthalmic testing, Walsh teaches: wherein said assessing includes matching the first angle value to the condition of the patient's eye based on reference data associating reference angle values to corresponding reference eye conditions (“the scan control and analysis module 824 is configured to compare the data received from the main body 106 to the data stored in the disease risk assessment/diagnosis module 808 in order to generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user; [0191], “The terms “eye scan,” “scanning the eye,” or “scan the eyes,” as used herein, are broad interchangeable terms that generally refer to the measurement of any part, substantially all, or all of the eye, including but not limited to the pre-cornea, the cornea, the retina, the eye lens, the iris, the vitreous body, the anterior chamber, the anterior chamber angle, the optic nerve, or any other tissue or nerve related to the eye”; [0147]).
Furthermore, Walsh teaches this configuration such that “In certain embodiments, the scan control and analysis module 824 uses historical images and/or scans of a specific user to compare with current images and/or scans of the same user to detect changes in the eyes of the user. In certain embodiments, the scan control and analysis module 824 uses the detected changes to help generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user” (Walsh, [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Walsh to provide a device wherein said assessing includes matching the first angle value to the condition of the patient's eye based on reference data associating reference angle values to corresponding reference eye conditions, for the purpose of detecting changes to help generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user (Walsh, [0191]).
Regarding claim 18, Yang and Bagherinia teach the system of claim 17. Yang fails to explicitly teach: wherein the reference angle values originate from reference measurements performed at the first and second viewpoints.
However, in a related invention in the field of eye OCT ophthalmic testing, Walsh teaches: wherein the reference angle values originate from reference measurements (“the scan control and analysis module 824 uses historical images and/or scans”; [0191]) performed at the first and second viewpoints (first illumination viewpoint being from light source 202 (para [0280]) and second imaging viewpoint being data acquisition device 202 (para [0280]), see Fig. 3A).
Furthermore, Walsh teaches this configuration such that “In certain embodiments, the scan control and analysis module 824 uses historical images and/or scans of a specific user to compare with current images and/or scans of the same user to detect changes in the eyes of the user. In certain embodiments, the scan control and analysis module 824 uses the detected changes to help generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user” (Walsh, [0191]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Walsh to provide a device wherein the reference angle values originate from reference measurements performed at the first and second viewpoints, for the purpose of detecting changes to help generate a risk assessment and/or diagnosis of disease in the eyes of the user (Walsh, [0191]).
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO 2020060486 A1), as cited in the IDS, and Bagherinia (US 20160317012 A1) as in independent claim 13, and further in view of Gagnon (US 20210127967 A1), as cited in the IDS.
Regarding claim 14, Yang and Bagherinia teach the system of claim 13. Yang and Bagherinia fail to teach: wherein the slit illuminator is movably mounted to the frame via a first encoding device, the first encoding device monitoring the first viewpoint of the slit illuminator with respect to the patient's eye when said first image is generated, and generating a signal indicative of the first viewpoint.
However, in a related invention in the field of automated slit lamp examination Gagnon teaches in Fig. 4A: the slit illuminator (“illuminator 106”; [0056]) is movably mounted to the frame (“a frame 102 to which are mounted a face receiving assembly 104, an illuminator 106, and a camera 108; [056]) via a first encoding device (“controller 112 controls the illuminator 106”; [0059]), the first encoding device (112) monitoring the first viewpoint of the slit illuminator (106) with respect to the patient's eye (10) when said first image is generated (“the controller 112 controls the illuminator 106 to illuminate the eye 10 of the patient in more than two successive illumination patterns”; [0059]), and generating a signal indicative of the first viewpoint (“the controller 112 may generate one or more spatial stamps for each of the acquired images, the spatial stamps being indicative of the position(s) of the camera 108 and/or of the illuminator 106 when the corresponding image was acquired”; [0085]).
Furthermore, Gagnon teaches this configuration such that “the acquisition of the eye images is automated thus reducing the need for highly trained professional(s) and consequently, the examination of the images can be performed in a remote or delayed fashion providing tele-ophthalmology possibilities to the eye-care specialist” (Gagnon, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Gagnon to provide a device in which the slit illuminator is movably mounted to the frame via a first encoding device, the first encoding device monitoring the first viewpoint of the slit illuminator with respect to the patient's eye when said first image is generated, and generating a signal indicative of the first viewpoint, for the purpose of performing the imaging in a remote or delayed fashion providing tele-ophthalmology possibilities to the eye-care specialist (Gagnon, [0003]).
Regarding claim 15, Yang and Bagherinia teach the system of claim 14. Yang and Bagherinia fail to teach: wherein the first encoding device is further configured for monitoring an orientation of the slit illumination beam with respect to the frame, and generating a signal indicative of an orientation angle of the slit illumination beam when said first image is generated.
However, in a related invention in the field of automated slit lamp examination Gagnon teaches in Fig. 4A: wherein the first encoding device (112) is further configured for monitoring an orientation of the slit illumination beam (106) with respect to the frame (102), and generating a signal indicative of an orientation angle of the slit illumination beam when said first image is generated (“the controller 112 may generate one or more spatial stamps for each of the acquired images, the spatial stamps being indicative of the position(s) of the camera 108 and/or of the illuminator 106 when the corresponding image was acquired”; [0085]).
Furthermore, Gagnon teaches this configuration such that “the acquisition of the eye images is automated thus reducing the need for highly trained professional(s) and consequently, the examination of the images can be performed in a remote or delayed fashion providing tele-ophthalmology possibilities to the eye-care specialist” (Gagnon, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Gagnon to provide a device in which the first encoding device is further configured for monitoring an orientation of the slit illumination beam with respect to the frame, and generating a signal indicative of an orientation angle of the slit illumination beam when said first image is generated, for the purpose of performing the imaging in a remote or delayed fashion providing tele-ophthalmology possibilities to the eye-care specialist (Gagnon, [0003]).
Regarding claim 16, Yang and Bagherinia teach the system of claim 13. Yang and Bagherinia fail to teach: wherein the camera is movably mounted to the frame via a second encoding device, the second encoding device monitoring the second viewpoint of the camera with respect to the patient's eye when said first image is generated, and generating a signal indicative of the second viewpoint.
However, in a related invention in the field of automated slit lamp examination Gagnon teaches in Fig. 4A: wherein the camera (“camera 108”; [0056]) is movably mounted to the frame (“a frame 102 to which are mounted a face receiving assembly 104, an illuminator 106, and a camera 108”; [0056]) via a second encoding device (“The movement of the camera 108 can be controlled by the controller 112”; [0065]), the second encoding device (112) monitoring the second viewpoint of the camera (108) with respect to the patient's eye when said first image is generated (“by moving the camera 108 during examination, one or more images of the eye of the patient can be taken from different spatial positions while the eye is being illuminated by one or more of the illumination patterns. The movement of the camera 108 can be controlled by the controller 112”; [0065]), and generating a signal indicative of the second viewpoint (“implement the eye sensor 122 using the camera 108 … The eye sensor 122 can detect a presence of the face of the patient 12 and generate a signal indicating that the imaging of the eye can be initiated”; [0062], “the controller 112 may generate one or more spatial stamps for each of the acquired images, the spatial stamps being indicative of the position(s) of the camera 108 and/or of the illuminator 106 when the corresponding image was acquired”; [0085]).
Furthermore, Gagnon teaches this configuration such that “the acquisition of the eye images is automated thus reducing the need for highly trained professional(s) and consequently, the examination of the images can be performed in a remote or delayed fashion providing tele-ophthalmology possibilities to the eye-care specialist” (Gagnon, [0003]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Yang and Bagherinia to incorporate the teachings of Gagnon to provide a device in which the camera is movably mounted to the frame via a second encoding device, the second encoding device monitoring the second viewpoint of the camera with respect to the patient's eye when said first image is generated, and generating a signal indicative of the second viewpoint, for the purpose of performing the imaging in a remote or delayed fashion providing tele-ophthalmology possibilities to the eye-care specialist (Gagnon, [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yam (US 20140211161 A1): Systems for performing sequential multiple function ophthalmic measurements using separate measurement instruments, by mechanical switching between the instruments. Specifically, encoders used to monitor the translation of the illuminator and the camera. Fig. 6A and 6B.
Friedman (US 10137239 B2): teaches to multiple slit lamps at different positions. See Fig. 7A.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUBY L KAUFFMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-1738. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30am - 5pm 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, Pinping Sun can be reached at (571) 270-1284. 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.
/RUBY L KAUFFMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/PINPING SUN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights