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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-10 and 12 as they pertain to the prior art have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
In claim 1, the limitation “additional optical means configured to adjust” in the last two lines of page 2 of the claim amendments for claim 1 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
In claim 5, the limitation “means for deforming the deformable multifocal lens” in the last line of claim 5 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 of the instant application was amended to state “a broadband light source with a low temporal coherence” in line 4 of the claim including amended strikeouts. The limitation “broadband light source” is not properly supported in the instant specification such that would sufficiently lead one of ordinary skill in the art to select a “broadband light source” from other light source types with low temporal coherences. In particular, “low time/temporal coherence” does not sufficiently provide a basis of support for a “broadband” light source. All the specification states about the light source is “a generated light beam with appropriate initial parameters (wavelength, light intensity, etc.)” in paragraph 0076. What is the wavelength makeup of the light source? Without these details, there is currently no support for the light source being “broadband”.
Also, claims 2-10, 12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
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 1-10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim states the limitation “broadband” in line 4 of the claim. This limitation is unclear as what is meant by “broadband” is specified in neither the claims nor the disclosure of the application. The only details pertaining to the light source in the instant application are that the light source has a “low time coherence”, but details such as the wavelength makeup, the light source type, etc. are not included such that would clarify the meaning of “broadband”. All the instant specification provides for the light beam is that it has “appropriate initial parameters (wavelength, light intensity, etc.)” in paragraph 0076, which does not provide clarity as to what “broadband” encompasses for the light source. Due to this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as the art teaches light having a “low coherence”, this limitation will be considered met.
Regarding claim 1, claim states the limitation “a different spectral range imaged onto the linear sensor and corresponding to a different imaging window height” in the last few lines of the claim. This limitation is unclear for several reasons, namely the “different imaging window height” – what is the imaging window height? Is this a literal window size somewhere? If so, where is this window? Is this at the object side of the device, the image side, or somewhere else relative to the device (such as outside it)? Also, what constitutes “different” in this instance? The literal height of the window somewhere relative to the device, the “spectral range” being imaged onto the line sensor, the shape of the beam through the optics, or some other measurement which would allow the device to create two “different imaging window height(s)”? Due to this limitation, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be apprised as to the scope of the invention (MPEP §2173.05(b)). For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as a different result (such as light spectrum, beam size, etc.) may be recorded from a device, this limitation will be considered met.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "one of the lenses of the optical lens" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This rejection may be overcome if the limitation is amended to say “a lens of the optical lens”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the remaining lenses" in line 3 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Also, claims 2-6, 8-10, 12 are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Murase et. al WO 2019172062 (hereinafter “Murase”) of record or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Murase et. al WO 2019172062 (hereinafter “Murase”) of record in view of Everett et. al US 8500279 (hereinafter “Everett”).
Regarding claim 1, Murase teaches a device for measuring characteristics of a human eye using optical coherence tomography (OCT) comprising:
a broadband light source (Murase fig. 1 - 102) a low temporal coherence (Murase para. 0060 – specifies a low coherence length for the light source),
a light beamsplitter (Murase fig. 1 – 104, 110) configured to divide a single light beam received from the broadband light source (102) into an object beam and a reference beam (Murase para. 0061 – divides light from 102 into a measurement optical path and a reference optical path), direct the object beam towards a tested eye (Murase para. 0059-0069, specifically 0061-0062 – the measurement light is guided toward the eye E) and the reference beam toward a reference path (Murase para. 0070-0075), direct the returning light beams that return from the reference path and from the tested eye (Murase para. 0061) to interfere with one another thereby enable interference of the returning light beams (Murase para. 0059 and 0070 – reference light which has passed through the reference optical system 140 is combined with measurement light from the measurement optical path and interferes with it) and direct the returning light beams to the spectrometer (Murase fig. 1 – 120, see also para. 0076),
optical elements of the reference path (Murase fig. 2 – 140, see also para. 0070) and optical elements configured to direct the object beam toward the tested eye (Murase fig. 2 – 130 including 320, see also para. 0062 – 130 guides measurement light to the eye E),
the spectrometer (120) comprising:
a collimator (Murase fig. 1 – within 120);
a diffraction element (Murase fig. 1 – shows 121 mislabeled as 122 in the figure, see also para. 0086 – states that 121 is a grading element such as a diffraction grating);
an optical lens (Murase fig. 1 – lens within 120); and
a detector including a linear sensor (Murase fig. 1 – shows 122 mislabeled as 121 in the figure, see also para. 0086 – states that 122 is a line sensor);
wherein the spectrometer (120) comprises additional optical means (Murase para. 0007, 0019 – control means) configured to adjust an optical mapping of an interference spectrum onto the linear sensor between at least two imaging settings (Murase para. 0007, 0019, 0023-0025, 0028-0029, 0034-0041 – a first mode where the fundus is imaged at the first field of view and a second mode where the fundus is imaged at a second field of view, thereby switching the imaging conditions in the imaging optical system between the first mode and the second mode), each of the at least two imaging settings providing a different spectral range imaged onto the linear sensor (122) and corresponding to a different imaging window height (Murase para. 0007, 0019, 0023-0025, 0028-0029, 0034-0041 – the diameter of the light beam irradiated onto the eye under examination differs between the first mode and the second mode).
In the event that Murase does not specifically teach that the light source is broadband, the below analysis is provided.
In a similar field of endeavor, Everett teaches a broadband light source (Everett col. 3 lines 14-17) for the purpose of utilizing a spatially coherent source of light (Everett col. 3 line 15). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a broadband light source as taught by Everett in the device of Murase in order to utilize a spatially coherent source of light (Everett col. 3 line 15).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase and Everett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of He et. al US 20050073679 (hereinafter “He”) of record.
Regarding claim 2, Murase and Everett teaches the device according to claim 1.
Murase and Everett do not teach wherein the additional optical means comprise one or more sets of optical lenses configured to replace the optical lens of the spectrometer, each optical lens of the one or more sets of optical lenses being configured to provide a different imaging window height.
In a similar field of endeavor, He teaches wherein the additional optical means one or more sets of optical lenses that replace a single optical lens of the spectrometer (He para. 0078, 0081, 0084 – lens IOL may be replaced with a set of two lenses L3 and L4, or with other separate lenses), to provide a different imaging window height for the purpose of reducing the amount of times the light is diffracted (He para. 0078). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a set of optical lenses replacing a single optical lens as taught by He in the device of Murase and Everett in order to reduce the amount of times the light is diffracted (He para. 0078).
Regarding claim 3, Murase, Everett, and He teach the device according to claim 2, and He further teaches wherein the additional optical means comprise two to five sets of optical lenses (Murase para. 0084).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase, Everett, and He teach as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Lewis US Patent 8,111,395 (hereinafter “Lewis”).
Regarding claim 4, Murase, Everett, and He teach the device according to claim 3.
Murase, Everett, and He do not teach wherein the additional optical means comprise three sets of optical lenses, however He does teach replacing one lens with a set or multiple sets of lenses (He para. 0078, 0081, 0084).
In a similar field of endeavor, Lewis teaches wherein the additional optical means comprise three sets of optical lenses (Lewis col. 4 lines 19-26, where fig. 1 shows a microscope with three optics) for the purpose of allowing a user to select a particle then obtain a spectrum of the particle (Lewis col. 4 lines 46-48). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have three sets of optical lenses in order to allow a user to select a particle then obtain a spectrum of the particle (Lewis col. 4 lines 46-48).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase and Everett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mueller et. al US Patent 3,794,426 (hereinafter “Mueller”) of record.
Regarding claim 5, Murase and Everett teach the device according to claim 1.
Murase and Everett do not teach wherein the additional optical means comprise a deformable multifocal lens forming part of the optical lens of the spectrometer, the deformable multifocal lens being accompanied by means for deforming the deformable multifocal lens.
In a similar field of endeavor, Mueller teaches wherein the additional optical means comprise a deformable multifocal lens (Mueller fig. 7 - 33) forming part of the optical lens of the spectrometer (Mueller fig. 7), the deformable multifocal lens (33) being accompanied by means for deforming the multifocal lens (Mueller col. 8 lines 12-44) for the purpose of focusing on and recording an interference pattern (Mueller col. 8 lines 15-19). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a multifocal lens as taught by Mueller in the device of Murase and Everett in order to focus on and record an interference pattern (Mueller col. 8 lines 15-19).
Claims 6-7 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase and Everett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tanaka et. al US 20150077748 (hereinafter “Tanaka”) of record.
Regarding claim 6, Murase and Everett teach the device according to claim 1.
Murase and Everett do not teach wherein the additional optical means comprises a motorized table configured to shift the optical lens relative to the detector.
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches wherein the additional optical means comprises a motorized table (Tanaka para. 0032 – adjusting means may be a movable stage) configured to shift the optical lens relative to the detector (Tanaka para. 0030 and 0032 – a movable stage may be used to adjust the relative arrangement relationship or direction between components including a collimating lens 32, condensing lens 34, and array type light receiving part 35) for the purpose of adjusting the focus score (Tanaka para. 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motorized table as taught by Tanaka in the device of Murase and Everett in order to adjust the focus score (Tanaka para. 0034).
Regarding claim 7, Murase and Everett teach the device according to claim 1.
Murase and Everett do not teach wherein the additional optical means comprise a motorized table configured to shift one of the lenses of the optical lens relative to the remaining lenses.
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches wherein the additional optical means comprises a motorized table (Tanaka para. 0032 – adjusting means may be a movable stage) configured to shift the optical lens relative to the remaining lenses (Tanaka para. 0030 and 0032 – a movable stage may be used to adjust the relative arrangement relationship or direction between components including a collimating lens 32, condensing lens 34, and array type light receiving part 35) for the purpose of adjusting the focus score (Tanaka para. 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motorized table as taught by Tanaka in the device of Murase and Everett in order to adjust the focus score (Tanaka para. 0034).
Regarding claim 12, Murase and Everett teach the device according to claim 1.
Murase and Everett do not specifically teach a motorized table configured to shift one of the lenses of the optical lens.
In the same field of endeavor, Tanaka teaches wherein the additional optical means are selected from a group including a set of replaceable optical lenses, a deformable multifocal lens, a motorized table configured to shift one of the lenses of the optical lens (Tanaka para. 0030 and 0032 – a movable stage may be used to adjust the relative arrangement relationship or direction between components including a collimating lens 32, condensing lens 34, and array type light receiving part 35), and an additional rotatable diffraction element, or a combination thereof for the purpose of adjusting the focus score (Tanaka para. 0034). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motorized table as taught by Tanaka in the device of Murase and Everett in order to adjust the focus score (Tanaka para. 0034).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase and Everett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Copland US 20210186321 (hereinafter “Copland”).
Regarding claim 8, Murase and Everett teach the device according to claim 1.
Murase and Everett do not teach wherein the additional optical means comprise two sets of optical lenses, each set including a motorized table configured to shift one of the lenses of a respective optical lens.
In the same field of endeavor, Lewis teaches wherein the additional optical means comprise two sets of optical lenses (Copland fig. 5 – first set is 1084 and 5085 and the second set is 5086 and 1082, see also para. 0073), each set including a motorized table configured to shift one of the lenses of a respective optical lens (Copland fig. 5 – 1088 mounts 1084 and 5085 and 1089 mounts 5086 and 1082, see also para. 0073) for the purpose of allowing the eye to fully relax its accommodation (Copland para. 0071-0072). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have two sets of optical lenses as taught by Copland in the device of Murase and Everett in order to allow the eye to fully relax its accommodation (Copland para. 0071-0072).
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murase and Everett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Suzuki US 20010024275 (hereinafter “Suzuki”) of record.
Regarding claim 9, Murase and Everett teach the device according to claim 1.
Murase and Everett do not teach wherein the additional optical means comprises a rotating diffraction element located between the diffraction element and the optical lens, the rotating diffraction element being rotated on a motor configured to change an angle at which a light beam falls on a surface of the rotating diffraction element.
In the same field of endeavor, Suzuki teaches wherein the additional optical means comprises a rotating diffraction element (Suzuki fig. 1-6 – 15, see also para. 0076 – 15is rotated) located between the diffraction element (Suzuki fig. 1-6 - 14) and the optical lens (Suzuki fig. 1 – 15 is disposed between 14 and lens 13), the rotating diffraction element (15) being mounted on a motor (Suzuki fig. 1 – 16, see also para. 0067 – 15 is mounted on 16) configured to change an angle at which a light beam falls on a surface of the rotating diffraction element (Suzuki fig. 1 – 16, see also fig. 1-6 – shows rotation of 15 and abstract, para. 0067, 0080, 0083) for the purpose of focusing the single pass beam or double pass beam on channels of a line sensor (Suzuki para. 0019). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a rotating diffraction element as taught by Suzuki in the device of Murase and Everett in order to focus the single pass beam or double pass beam on channels of a line sensor (Suzuki para. 0019).
Regarding claim 10, Murase, Everett, and Suzuki teach the device according to claim 9, and Suzuki further teaches wherein the diffraction element (15) is installed on a motor (16) configured to change an angle at which a light beam falls on a surface of the diffraction element (Suzuki abstract, para. 0067, 0080, 0083).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH M HALL whose telephone number is (703)756-5795. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30 pm PST.
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.
/ELIZABETH M HALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights