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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on July 8, 2026 has been entered. Claim 5 has been canceled in the present application. Claim 21 is new in the present application. Claims 1, 8-9, 13, and 17-20 have been amended in the present application. Claims 1-4 and 6-21 are pending in the present application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 8, 2026 with respect to claims 1 and 17-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 8 and 9 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on page 8 that Snook fails to teach one or more image collection devices…arranged to capture one or more images of the structure of the eye from one of a plurality of physical locations and/or different perspectives with a beam splitter, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that while Figure 3 of Snook uses three cameras, Figure 4 only uses a single camera 4. However, Figure 3 is a block diagram showing the overall configuration of the device (Col. 6 line 37). As can be seen in Figure 7, which is a front view of the system, with camera lenses 34 either side of central camera lens 2. The central camera lens 2 corresponds to lens 2 of Figure 9. Thus Snook teaches one or more image collection devices…arranged to capture one or more images of the structure of the eye from one of a plurality of physical locations and/or different perspectives. Furthermore, having one beam splitter (Figure 9 beam splitter 15) in the optical paths used by the central camera (Figure 9 camera 4) satisfies the claim language which does not require the beam splitter between each of the one or more image collection devices and eye. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments on pages 8-9 that Snook fails to teach the beam splitter being arranged to reflect light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to transmit the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Snook fails to teach the beam splitter being arranged to reflect light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to transmit the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices. However the arrangement of the one or more image collection devices and illumination device with respect to the beam splitter and the selection of which light to transmit and which light to reflect is merely a matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook such that the beam splitter reflects light from the illumination device and transmits light reflected from the eye to the one or more image collection devices since selection of which light beam splitter reflects/transmits and arrangement of the illumination device and one or more cameras only involves routine skill in the art. Therefore Applicant’s argument is not persuasive and Examiner maintains the rejection of claims 1 and 17-20 over Snook.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the fluorescent… substance" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will interpret “the fluorescent… substance” as “the photoluminescent substance” to correspond to claim 8.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 6-7, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snook (U.S. Patent No. 6,193,371).
Regarding claim 1, Snook teaches an eye imaging system (Figure 3) comprising:
an illumination device (Figure 9 strobe tube 46, Column 8 lines 24-30) configured to illuminate a structure of an eye with a patterned or otherwise textured image (Column 8 lines 24-30 illumination from strobe tube 46 provides a pattern a points on reticle 47 which is imaged at the cornea of the eye);
one or more image collection devices (Figures 3 and 9 cameras 4) wherein;
the one or more image collection devices are arranged to capture one or more images of the structure of the eye from one of a plurality of physical locations and/or from different perspectives (Figure 3 cameras 4 capture images from different locations, Column 6 lines 43-48); and
a beam splitter (Figure 9 beam splitter 15) provided in optical pathways between:
(i) the illumination device and the eye (Figure 9 beam splitter 15 is between strobe tube 46 and eye 1); and
(ii) between the one or more image collection devices and the eye (Figure 9 beam splitter 15 is between camera 4 and eye 1);
Snook teaches the beam splitter being arranged to transmit light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to reflect the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices (Figures 8 and 9, Column 8 lines 13-51) but fails to teach the beam splitter being arranged to reflect light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to transmit the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices. However the arrangement of the one or more image collection devices and illumination device with respect to the beam splitter and the selection of which light to transmit and which light to reflect is merely a matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook such that the beam splitter reflects light from the illumination device and transmits light reflected from the eye to the one or more image collection devices since selection of which light beam splitter reflects/transmits and arrangement of the illumination device and one or more cameras only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, Snook teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Snook further teaches an image processing system (Figure 10 computer 38) configured to process the one or more images captured by each of the one or more image collection devices, from each of the physical locations to produce a three dimensional image of the structure of the eye illuminated by the illumination device (Column 11 lines 46-55 triangulation from images produced by projection system produces a surface contour of the cornea).
Regarding claim 3, Snook teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Snook further teaches the patterned image comprises a regular or repeating pattern (Column 11 lines 24-27 pseudo-placido disc pattern formed from concentric circles).
Regarding claim 6, Snook teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Snook further teaches the illumination device comprises an illuminator or other light source (Figure 9 strobe tube 46, Column 8 lines 24-30; Figure 9 lamp 7, Column 7 line 66-Column 8 line 7).
Regarding claim 7, Snook teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Snook further teaches the illumination device comprises an image projector (Column 11 lines 9-12 reticle projection system).
Regarding claim 14, Snook teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Snook further teaches the patterned or otherwise textured image comprises a fine random dot pattern or a set of stripes or a grid (Column 11 lines 24-27 pseudo-placido disc pattern formed from concentric circles which forms a set of stripes).
Regarding claim 15, Snook teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Snook further teaches the illumination device is configured to illuminate the structure of the eye with the patterned or otherwise textured image that is moving or otherwise changing in time (Column 8 lines 24-30 short illumination time provided by strobe tube 46 to provide a motion artifact illumination); and the one or more image collection devices are configured to collect multiple images or video of the structure of the eye over time whilst the illumination device projects the moving or otherwise changing image or pattern (Column 9 line 52 - Column 11 line 5 sequences of multiple images are captured).
Regarding claim 16, Snook teaches a method (Column 9 line 52 – Column 10 line 5) for capturing one or more images of a structure of an eye using the eye imaging system of claim 1 (See claim 1 above), the method comprising:
illuminating the structure of the eye with a patterned or otherwise textured image (Column 8 lines 24-30 illumination from strobe tube 46 provides a pattern a points on reticle 47 which is imaged at the cornea of the eye) using an illumination device (Figure 9 strobe tube 46, Column 8 lines 24-30); and using one or more image collection devices (Figures 3 and 9 cameras 4):
to capture one or more images of the structure of the eye from one of a plurality of physical locations (Figure 3 cameras 4 capture images from different locations, Column 6 lines 43-48); and
to capture one or more images of the structure of the eye from another one of the plurality of physical locations and/or from different perspectives (Figure 3 cameras 4 capture images from different locations, Column 6 lines 43-48).
Regarding claim 17, Snook teaches a method for processing one or more images of a structure of an eye (Column 11 lines 24-45), illuminated with a patterned or otherwise textured image by an illumination device (Column 8 lines 24-30 illumination from strobe tube 46 provides a pattern a points on reticle 47 which is imaged at the cornea of the eye), captured by one or more image collection devices (Figures 3 and 9 cameras 4), from a plurality of physical locations (Figure 3 cameras 4 capture images from different locations, Column 6 lines 43-48) using an image processing, to produce a three dimensional image of the structure of the eye, wherein the image processing system is configured to process the one or more images captured by each of the one or more image collection devices, from each of the physical locations to produce a three dimensional image of the structure of the eye illuminated by the illumination device (Column 11 lines 46-55 triangulation from images produced by projection system produces a surface contour of the cornea).
Snook teaches the beam splitter (Figure 9 beam splitter 15) being arranged to transmit light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to reflect the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices (Figures 8 and 9, Column 8 lines 13-51) but fails to teach the beam splitter being arranged to reflect light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to transmit the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices. However the arrangement of the one or more image collection devices and illumination device with respect to the beam splitter and the selection of which light to transmit and which light to reflect is merely a matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook such that the beam splitter reflects light from the illumination device and transmits light reflected from the eye to the one or more image collection devices since selection of which light beam splitter reflects/transmits and arrangement of the illumination device and one or more cameras only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 18, Snook teaches an eye imaging system (Figure 3) comprising:
an illumination device (Figure 9 strobe tube 46, Column 8 lines 24-30) configured to illuminate a structure of an eye with a patterned or otherwise textured image (Column 8 lines 24-30 illumination from strobe tube 46 provides a pattern a points on reticle 47 which is imaged at the cornea of the eye);and
one or more image collection devices arranged to capture one or more images of the structure of the eye (Figures 3 and 9 cameras 4); and
a beam splitter (Figure 9 beam splitter 15) provided in optical pathways between:
(i) the illumination device and the eye (Figure 9 beam splitter 15 is between strobe tube 46 and eye 1); and
(ii) between the one or more image collection devices and the eye (Figure 9 beam splitter 15 is between camera 4 and eye 1); wherein
the illumination device is configured to illuminate the structure of the eye with the patterned or otherwise textured image that is moving or otherwise changing in time (Column 8 lines 24-30 short illumination time provided by strobe tube 46 to provide a motion artifact illumination); and
one or more image collection devices are configured to collect multiple images or video of the structure of the eye over time whilst the illumination device projects the moving or otherwise changing image or pattern (Column 9 line 52 - Column 11 line 5 sequences of multiple images are captured).
Snook teaches the beam splitter being arranged to transmit light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to reflect the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices (Figures 8 and 9, Column 8 lines 13-51) but fails to teach the beam splitter being arranged to reflect light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to transmit the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices. However the arrangement of the one or more image collection devices and illumination device with respect to the beam splitter and the selection of which light to transmit and which light to reflect is merely a matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook such that the beam splitter reflects light from the illumination device and transmits light reflected from the eye to the one or more image collection devices since selection of which light beam splitter reflects/transmits and arrangement of the illumination device and one or more cameras only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 19, Snook teaches a method of capturing one or more images of a structure of an eye (Column 9 line 52 – Column 10 line 5) using an eye imaging system (Figure 3), the eye imaging system comprising an illumination device (Figure 9 strobe tube 46, Column 8 lines 24-30) configured to illuminate a structure of an eye with a patterned or otherwise textured image (Column 8 lines 24-30 illumination from strobe tube 46 provides a pattern a points on reticle 47 which is imaged at the cornea of the eye); and one or more image collection devices arranged to capture one or more images of the structure of the eye (Figures 3 and 9 cameras 4); and a beam splitter (Figure 9 beam splitter 15) provided in optical pathways between: (i) the illumination device and the eye (Figure 9 beam splitter 15 is between strobe tube 46 and eye 1); and (ii) between the one or more image collection devices and the eye (Figure 9 beam splitter 15 is between camera 4 and eye 1); wherein the illumination device is configured to illuminate the structure of the eye with the patterned or otherwise textured image that is moving or otherwise changing in time (Column 8 lines 24-30 short illumination time provided by strobe tube 46 to provide a motion artifact illumination); and one or more image collection devices are configured to collect multiple images or video of the structure of the eye over time whilst the illumination device projects the moving or otherwise changing image or pattern (Column 9 line 52 - Column 11 line 5 sequences of multiple images are captured), and the method comprising: illuminating the structure of the eye with a moving or otherwise changing patterned or otherwise textured image using the illumination device (Column 8 lines 24-30 short illumination time provided by strobe tube 46 to provide a motion artifact illumination); and using one or more image collection devices to capture a video or a plurality of images of the structure of the eye over time whilst the illumination device projects the moving or otherwise changing image or pattern (Column 9 line 52 - Column 11 line 5 sequences of multiple images are captured).
Snook teaches the beam splitter being arranged to transmit light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to reflect the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices (Figures 8 and 9, Column 8 lines 13-51) but fails to teach the beam splitter being arranged to reflect light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to transmit the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices. However the arrangement of the one or more image collection devices and illumination device with respect to the beam splitter and the selection of which light to transmit and which light to reflect is merely a matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook such that the beam splitter reflects light from the illumination device and transmits light reflected from the eye to the one or more image collection devices since selection of which light beam splitter reflects/transmits and arrangement of the illumination device and one or more cameras only involves routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 20, Snook teaches a non-transient computer readable storage medium (Figure 10 computer 38) comprising a computer program product configured such that, when executed by an eye imaging system, causes the eye imaging system (Figure 3) to:
illuminate the structure of the eye with a patterned or otherwise textured image using an illumination device (Column 8 lines 24-30 illumination from strobe tube 46 provides a pattern a points on reticle 47 which is imaged at the cornea of the eye); and
use one or more image collection devices (Figures 3 and 9 cameras 4) to:
capture one or more images of the structure of the eye from one of a plurality of physical locations (Figure 3 cameras 4 capture images from different locations, Column 6 lines 43-48); and
capture one or more images of the structure of the eye from another one of the plurality of physical locations and/or from different perspectives (Figure 3 cameras 4 capture images from different locations, Column 6 lines 43-48).
Snook teaches a beam splitter (Figure 9 beam splitter 15) being arranged to transmit light from the illumination device towards the eye, and to reflect the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices (Figures 8 and 9, Column 8 lines 13-51) but fails to teach illuminating the structure of eye via reflection from a beamsplitter and to transmit the light reflected back from the eye to the one or more image collection devices through the beam splitter. However the arrangement of the one or more image collection devices and illumination device with respect to the beam splitter and the selection of which light to transmit and which light to reflect is merely a matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook such that the beam splitter reflects light from the illumination device and transmits light reflected from the eye to the one or more image collection devices since selection of which light beam splitter reflects/transmits and arrangement of the illumination device and one or more cameras only involves routine skill in the art.
Claims 8-10, 12, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snook (U.S. Patent No. 6,193,371) as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Catanzariti et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0131055 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Catanzariti”).
Regarding claim 8, Snook teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Snook fails to teach the illumination device is configured to have a wavelength which excites a photoluminescent substance applied to a surface of the structure of the eye. However, Catanzariti is related to Snook with respect corneal imaging system and teaches the illumination device is configured to have a wavelength which excites a photoluminescent substance applied to a surface of the structure of the eye ([0010] surface of eye is coated with a fluorescent dye and projector is configured to project light in a wavelength that overlaps the excitation band of the dye). Catanzariti further teaches using fluorescent imaging to solve the problem of dissimilar reflective properties of the scleral and corneal surfaces ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook by applying a photoluminescent substance to the surface of the eye and using the illumination device to excite the photoluminescent substance in order to solve the problem of dissimilar reflective properties of the scleral and corneal surfaces (Catanzariti [0010]).
Regarding claim 9, Snook teaches all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Snook fails to teach the illumination device is configured to have a wavelength which excites a fluorescent substance applied to the structure of the eye. However, Catanzariti is related to Snook with respect corneal imaging system and teaches the illumination device is configured to have a wavelength which excites a fluorescent substance applied to a surface of the structure of the eye ([0010] surface of eye is coated with a fluorescent dye and projector is configured to project light in a wavelength that overlaps the excitation band of the dye). Catanzariti further teaches using fluorescent imaging to solve the problem of dissimilar reflective properties of the scleral and corneal surfaces ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook by applying a fluorescent substance to the surface of the eye and using the illumination device to excite the fluorescent substance as taught by Catanzariti in order to solve the problem of dissimilar reflective properties of the scleral and corneal surfaces (Catanzariti [0010]).
Regarding claim 10, Snook and Catanzariti teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 1. Snook fails to teach the fluorescent substance comprises fluorescein dye. However, Catanzariti teaches the fluorescent substance comprises fluorescein dye ([0041] fluorescing substance such as fluorescein). Catanzariti further teaches using fluorescent imaging to solve the problem of dissimilar reflective properties of the scleral and corneal surfaces ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook by using a fluorescein dye as taught by Catanzariti in order to solve the problem of dissimilar reflective properties of the scleral and corneal surfaces (Catanzariti [0010]).
Regarding claim 12, Snook and Catanzariti teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Snook fails to teach the one or more image collection devices comprise a light filter configured to filter substantially all of the light, except light at the wavelengths emitted by the photoluminescent substance applied to the structure of the eye, when the structure of the eye is illuminated by the illumination device. However, Catanzariti teaches the one or more image collection devices comprise a light filter configured to filter substantially all of the light, except light at the wavelengths emitted by the photoluminescent substance applied to the structure of the eye, when the structure of the eye is illuminated by the illumination device (Figure 3 emission filter 0304, [0041]). Catanzariti further teaches using an emission filter to allow imaging of the fluorescence signal without interference from reflected excitation light ([0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook and Catanzariti to use a light filter to filter out non-emission wavelengths of the fluorescent or photoluminescent substance as taught by Catanzariti in order to allow imaging of the fluorescence signal without interference from reflected excitation light (Catanzariti [0041]).
Regarding claim 21, Snook and Catanzariti teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Snook further teaches the illumination device is configured to illuminate the structure of the eye with the patterned or otherwise textured image that is moving or otherwise changing in time (Column 8 lines 24-30 short illumination time provided by strobe tube 46 to provide a motion artifact illumination); and the one or more image collection devices are configured to collect multiple images or video of the structure of the eye over time whilst the illumination device projects the moving or otherwise changing image or pattern (Column 9 line 52 - Column 11 line 5 sequences of multiple images are captured).
Snook fails to teach the illumination device is configured to illuminate the photoluminescent substance. However, Catanzariti is related to Snook with respect corneal imaging system and teaches the illumination device is configured to illuminate the photoluminescent substance ([0010] a fluorescent dye and projector is configured to project light in a wavelength that overlaps the excitation band of the dye). Catanzariti further teaches using fluorescent imaging to solve the problem of dissimilar reflective properties of the scleral and corneal surfaces ([0010]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook by using the illumination device to excite the photoluminescent substance in order to solve the problem of dissimilar reflective properties of the scleral and corneal surfaces (Catanzariti [0010]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Snook (U.S. Patent No. 6,193,371) in view of Catanzariti (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0131055) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Lashkari et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,089,716 – cited by Applicant – hereinafter referred to as “Lashkari”).
Regarding claim 11, Snook and Catanzariti teach all the limitations of the claimed invention with respect to claim 8. Snook and Catanzariti fail to teach the photoluminescent substance comprises non-fluorescein based photoluminescent materials. However, Lashkari is related to Snook with respect to an eye imaging system and teaches the photoluminescent substance comprises non-fluorescein based photoluminescent materials (Column 9 line 36 indocyanine dye). A prima facie case of obviousness exists when selecting a known material based on its suitability for its intended use. In re Leshin, 277 F.2d, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the eye imaging system taught by Snook and Catanzariti to use non-fluorescein based photoluminescent materials as such as indocyanine dye as taught by Lashkari since selection of the dye is a matter of design choice for one of ordinary skill in the art.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, the best prior art, Snook (U.S. Patent No. 6,193,371), fails to teach or reasonably suggest, alone or in combination with other art “the structure of the eye that the illumination device is configured to illuminate and, the one or more image collection devices are arranged to capture the one or more images of, is the retina, and an indirect ophthalmoscopy lens is positioned between the illumination device and/or the structure of the eye and/or the image collection devices, wherein the indirect ophthalmoscopy lens is configured and positioned to work in conjunction with the eye's optics to conjugate the patterned or otherwise textured image to the retina, and to focus the patterned or otherwise textured image reflected from the retina, or emitted by autofluorescence, fluorescence, or photoluminescence, to a focus point, wherein a portion of the focused reflected light is transmitted through the beam splitter” (Snook teaches corneal imaging) in combination with the intervening limitations of claim 1. Moreover, modifying the system to satisfy such a condition would not have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed.
As such, the prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails to teach the cumulative details of claim 13, specifically the limitation: “the structure of the eye that the illumination device is configured to illuminate and, the one or more image collection devices are arranged to capture the one or more images of, is the retina, and an indirect ophthalmoscopy lens is positioned between the illumination device and/or the structure of the eye and/or the image collection devices, wherein the indirect ophthalmoscopy lens is configured and positioned to work in conjunction with the eye's optics to conjugate the patterned or otherwise textured image to the retina, and to focus the patterned or otherwise textured image reflected from the retina, or emitted by autofluorescence, fluorescence, or photoluminescence, to a focus point, wherein a portion of the focused reflected light is transmitted through the beam splitter”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Su et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,361,167) teaches an optical system configured to capture images the eye from multiple angles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX PARK RICKEL whose telephone number is (703)756-4561. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571)272-2713. 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.
Alex Rickel
Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/A.P.R./Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BALRAM T PARBADIA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights