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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 170 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claim recites a system, thus is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim 170 recites the limitations:
access a database of spectral calibration images of a plurality of phantom eyes, wherein each spectral calibration image is associated with a respective phantom eye of unique optical properties that the spectral calibration image was generated from;
identify a first spectral calibration image, wherein the first spectral calibration image is associated with a first phantom eye that mimics optical properties of a biological eye that the spectral retinal image was generated from; and
correct the spectral retinal image with the first spectral calibration image of the first phantom eye.
These limitations, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it recites steps of accessing a database of calibration images, each image associated with a respective phantom eye of unique optical properties, identifying a first calibration image that is appropriate for a biological eye, and based on selected calibration image, correcting the image of the biological eye with the calibration image by comparison.
These actions fall under the Mental Processes and Mathematical Concepts categories defined in MPEP 2106.04(A)(2) as “concept performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion).” A human, such as surgeon and/or physician, could mentally perform tasks of looking up collection of calibration images, searching for a specific eye condition, such as looking up for calibration image for myopia from collection of calibration images, and among the collection, select that image as a first calibration image. A physician can make comparison between selected calibration image and image of the biological eye, using mental framework of evaluation and judgement, and correct the image of the biological eye based on the comparison, such as manual correction of estimating parameters and applying to the images.
These steps can all be performed in the mind with aid of a pen and paper.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements:
Wherein the first spectral calibration image is associated with a first phantom eye that mimics optical properties of a biological eye that the spectral retinal image was generated from.
wherein the processor is programmed to:
This claim elements of image generation are a mere data collection step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity and post-solution activity. The claims do not specify any configuration or improvement in the computer and processor itself, just simply gathering medical image data and calibration image data which are necessary precursors for all uses of the recited abstract idea since no identification of specific calibration image and correcting the retinal image with selected calibration image by comparison can be performed without the data.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process) executed by a computer (e.g., the processor).
In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in claim 170 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Thus, this claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No – The claim recites additional claim elements recite the following additional elements:
Wherein the first spectral calibration image is associated with a first phantom eye that mimics optical properties of a biological eye that the spectral retinal image was generated from.
wherein the processor is programmed to:
The above-identified additional elements of “generating calibration and retinal image” is performed by using “commercially available lenses” as indicated in specification, paragraph [0062] of instant application, and the abstract ideas are performed by “a computer processing unit ([0095])”, which are all generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per applicant’s specification, applicant describes a computer processing device as a processor, CPU, which elements are disclosed with high generality leading to a conclusion that these elements are well-known in the field.
With respect to “generating calibration and retinal image,” specification describes using commercially available lenses ([0062]), which is described as a commercially available product that indicates that the element of camera is sufficiently well-known in the field of generating image data.
Accordingly, in light of applicant’s specification, the claimed term interface circuits and computer/processor are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the interface and computer/processor. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
Therefore, the examiner concludes that receiving medical image data, camera image data acquired by a camera and generating augmented camera image data by interface and computer/processor are common use in medical image guidance, and thus, simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception is not significantly more when recited with a claim with a judicial exception, fails to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception individually and in combination.
In light of the above, claim 170 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 163 and 171-173 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by "Mendlow et al.," US 2022/0215584 (hereinafter Mendlow).
Regarding to claim 163, Mendlow teaches a method of using a phantom eye, comprising:
imaging a phantom eye with a light source (optical radiation source in OCT [0064]) of a lighting assembly to generate a reference image (Scanned beams of light directed to a calibration phantom [0117]),
wherein the phantom eye (model eye [0135]) comprises:
a curved reflectance standard having a light-receiving surface configured to be illuminated by light (Retinal plane with curvature [0080]); and
one or more ocular media components positioned between the curved reflectance standard and the lighting assembly (light travels through lens and to backplane [0134]), wherein:
the curved reflectance standard mimics an optical property of a retina of a biological eye (mimic light transmission and reflection from the retina [0168]); and the one or more ocular media components mimic an optical property of the biological eye ( fair replica of the human eye, with a lens and a fundus, retinal plane with curvature [0080]; model eye mimics behavior of a human eye [0134]);
imaging the biological eye with the light source of the lighting assembly to generate a spectral image of the biological eye (hyperspectral images [0076]; image given a subject eye [0173]) and
adjusting the spectral image of the biological eye based at least in part on the reference image (correct by transformation of an image acquired with a calibration method using a calibration phantom [0115], [0122], [0173]; corrected calibration function to images acquired with the initial calibration of imaging device [0009]; provide a transformation to rescale images according to a correct calibration [0128], calibration image and subsequent images rescaled by applying the function [0199] and [0201]).
Regarding to claim 171, Mendlow teaches an apparatus comprising:
at least one processor (processor [0206]-[0208]; and
at least one storage medium having encoded thereon executable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (computer program instructions stored on memory, recognizable by a processor [0208] and [0211]), cause the at least one processor to carry out a method comprising:
adjusting a hyperspectral image of a biological eye based at least in part on a reference image captured using a phantom eye (correct by transformation of an image acquired with a calibration method using a calibration phantom [0115], [0122], [0173]; corrected calibration function to images acquired with the initial calibration of imaging device [0009]; provide a transformation to rescale images according to a correct calibration [0128], calibration image and subsequent images rescaled by applying the function [0199]),
the phantom eye (model eye [0080]) comprising:
a curved reflectance standard having a light-receiving surface configured to be illuminated by light (retina plane with curvature [0080], [0060]); and
one or more ocular media components positioned such that the light passes through the one or more ocular media components prior to illuminating the light-receiving surface of the curved reflectance standard (anatomical model eye includes a cornea, lens [0060], [0080], lens focuses light from the imaging device to the retinal film plane [0007])
Regarding to 172, Mendlow teaches a method of using a phantom eye, comprising:
imaging a phantom eye with a light source of a lighting assembly to generate a reference image (provide a transformation to rescale images according to a correct calibration [0128], calibration image and subsequent images rescaled by applying the function [0199]),
wherein the reference image is configured to be used to calibrate an imaging system (correct by transformation of an image acquired with a calibration method using a calibration phantom [0115], [0122], [0173]; corrected calibration function to images acquired with the initial calibration of imaging device [0009]; provide a transformation to rescale images according to a correct calibration [0128], calibration image and subsequent images rescaled by applying the function [0199]), and wherein the phantom eye comprises:
a curved reflectance standard having a light-receiving surface configured to be illuminated by light (Retinal plane with curvature [0080]); and
one or more ocular media components positioned between the curved reflectance standard and the lighting assembly (light travels through lens and to backplane [0134]), wherein:
the curved reflectance standard mimics an optical property of a retina of a biological eye (mimic light transmission and reflection from the retina [0168]); and the one or more ocular media components mimic an optical property of the biological eye ( fair replica of the human eye, with a lens and a fundus, retinal plane with curvature [0080]; model eye mimics behavior of a human eye [0134]).
Regarding to claim 173, Mendlow teaches at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having encoded thereon executable instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (computer program instructions stored on memory, recognizable by a processor [0208] and [0211]), cause the at least one processor to carry out a method comprising:
adjusting a hyperspectral image of a biological eye based at least in part on a reference image captured using a phantom eye (correct by transformation of an image acquired with a calibration method using a calibration phantom [0115], [0122], [0173]; corrected calibration function to images acquired with the initial calibration of imaging device [0009]; provide a transformation to rescale images according to a correct calibration [0128], calibration image and subsequent images rescaled by applying the function [0199]),
the phantom eye (model eye [0080]) comprising:
a curved reflectance standard having a light-receiving surface configured to be illuminated by light (retina plane with curvature [0080], [0060]); and
one or more ocular media components positioned such that the light passes through the one or more ocular media components prior to illuminating the light-receiving surface of the curved reflectance standard (anatomical model eye includes a cornea, lens [0060], [0080], lens focuses light from the imaging device to the retinal film plane [0007])
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 149-152 and 161 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Yates et al.,” US 2019/0213917 (hereinafter Yates) and “Wang,” US 2021/0145274 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding to claim 149, Yates teaches a phantom eye (eye model [0006]), comprising:
a curved reflectance standard having a light-receiving surface configured to be illuminated by light (retinal shell having a curved surface 7 Figure 2 [0021]; shell constitutes a curved surface with the shape of the shell rotationally symmetric [0026] ); and
one or more ocular media components positioned such that the light passes through the one or more ocular media components prior to illuminating the light-receiving surface of the curved reflectance standard (corneal and lens model, 6 Figure 2 [0015]),
wherein: the curved reflectance standard mimics an optical property of a retina of a biological eye (retinal shell [0021], transfer of an image of the human retina acquired by an ophthalmic camera to the retinal shell [0022]); and
the one or more ocular media components mimic an optical property of the biological eye (characteristics of lens model having characteristic position ,size, shape, polarization, sharpness, scattering and brightness as seen on a human eye, translucent mimicking scattering haze of human lens [0017], [0018]).
Yates does not explicitly disclose light passes through the ocular media components prior to the light receiving surface of the curved reflectance standard.
Yates discloses that the curved reflectance standard mimics a retina and ocular media mimics a biological eye, thus, would have same optical property as an eye. The examiner submits that the limitation is reciting operation of human eye when the light is passing through the lens and illuminated on the retina, thus having optical property of retina and ocular media, light would behave as in claimed limitation.
In the analogous field of endeavor in eye model, Wang teaches light pathway of the eye, wherein light beam enters and the beam passes through lens and then enters to illuminate the retina of the eye ([0112] Figure 1).
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 eye model as taught by Yates to incorporate teaching of Wang, since optical pathway for light was well known in the art as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Yates with no change in their respective functions, illuminating the eye model with light, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to allow light travel through the optical path to the retina ([0112]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 161, Yates teaches a system comprising:
a phantom eye (eye model [0006]), comprising:
a curved reflectance standard having a light-receiving surface configured to be illuminated by light (retinal shell having a curved surface 7 Figure 2 [0021]; shell constitutes a curved surface with the shape of the shell rotationally symmetric [0026]); and
one or more ocular media components positioned such that the light passes through the one or more ocular media components prior to illuminating the light-receiving surface of the curved reflectance standard (corneal and lens model, 6 Figure 2 [0015]),
wherein: the curved reflectance standard mimics an optical property of a retina of a biological eye (retinal shell [0021], transfer of an image of the human retina acquired by an ophthalmic camera to the retinal shell [0022]); and
the one or more ocular media components mimic an optical property of the biological eye (characteristics of lens model having characteristic position ,size, shape, polarization, sharpness, scattering and brightness as seen on a human eye, translucent mimicking scattering haze of human lens [0017], [0018]).
Yates does not explicitly disclose light passes through the ocular media components prior to the light receiving surface of the curved reflectance standard.
Yates discloses that the curved reflectance standard mimics a retina and ocular media mimics a biological eye, thus, would have same optical property as an eye. The examiner submits that the limitation is reciting operation of human eye when the light is passing through the lens and illuminated on the retina, thus having optical property of retina and ocular media, light would behave as in claimed limitation.
In the analogous field of endeavor in eye model, Wang teaches light pathway of the eye, wherein light beam enters and the beam passes through lens and then enters to illuminate the retina of the eye ([0112] Figure 1) and a light source configured to emit light to the curved reflectance standard (a light source [0136]) and a sensor configured to detect light reflected by the curved reflectance standard (camera [0113] and [0136]).
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 eye model as taught by Yates to incorporate teaching of Wang, since optical pathway for light was well known in the art as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Yates with no change in their respective functions, illuminating the eye model with light, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to allow light travel through the optical path to the retina ([0112]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 150, Yates and Wang together teach all limitations of claim 149 as set forth above.
Wang further teaches further comprising a spectral filter positioned on an anterior surface of the phantom eye (pupil 312 in anterior surface of the phantom eye).
Regarding to claims 151-152, Yates and Wang together teach all limitations of claim 149 as set forth above.
Yates further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 151, further comprising an enclosure, wherein the curved reflectance standard and at least one of the one or more ocular media components are housed within the enclosure (Figure 2 shows lens model within the housings 2 and 3[0015]).
Of claim 152, wherein: the enclosure comprises a curved cutout; the curved reflectance standard and at least one of the one or more ocular media components are positioned within the curved cutout (Figure 2); the curved reflectance standard is positioned against a surface of the curved cutout; and at least one of the one or more ocular media components are positioned against an anterior surface of the curved reflectance standard (7 positioned against a surface of cutout of housing 3 while lens and 10 positioned against 7 Figure 2).
Claim(s) 155-156 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates and Wang as applied to claim 151 above, and further in view of “Ocular Instruments,” Ocular Imaging Eye Model, Bracket & Spanner 2016 (hereinafter Ocular Instruments).
Regarding to claims 155-156, Yates and Wang together teach all limitations of claim 151 as set forth above.
Yates and Wang do not further teach , wherein the enclosure comprises a mounting member configured to mount the enclosure to an apparatus configured to move the enclosure wherein the mounting member is a cavity in an outer surface of the enclosure or a protrusion extending from an outer surface of the enclosure.
However, in the analogous field of eye model, Ocular imaging eye model comprises a mounting member is a protrusion extending from an outer surface of the enclosure (peg on the back) fits into the Ocular Eye Model Bracket which can be attached to any slit lamp (Design).
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 eye model housing as taught by Yates to incorporate teaching of Ocular Instruments, since mounting member was well known in the art as taught by Ocular Instruments. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Yates with no change in their respective functions, adding a peg on the housing, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide mounting ability to be attached to slit lamp (Design), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 153-154, 157-160, and 162 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yates and Wang as applied to claims 149, 151, and 161 above, and further in view of “Sapiens,” US 2020/0170500 (hereinafter Sapiens).
Regarding to claims 153 and 157-160, Yates and Wang together teach all limitations of claim 151 as set forth above.
Regarding to claims 153 and 157-160, Yates and Wang do not explicitly disclose comprising an actuator and its details.
However, in the analogous field of eye models, Sapiens teaches eye modelling comprising an actuator ( deformable lens [0052], lens mounted on motors, camera mounted on linear stage [0057]-[0059]) wherein: the actuator is positioned within the enclosure; and the actuator is coupled to the curved reflectance standard and configured to move the curved reflectance standard (camera mounted on a linear stage allowing for changing the distance between the deformable lens and the camera [0059]).
The examiner notes that deformable lens has actuator within, thus, would be positioned within the enclosure, such as a housing which enclosing lens as disclosed by Yates.
Regarding to claim 157, Sapiens teaches wherein at least one of the one or more ocular media components is coupled to a movable track, wherein the movable track is configured to adjust a distance between the at least one of the one or more ocular media components and the curved reflectance standard (camera mounted on a translation stage [0059]).
Regarding to claim 158, Sapiens teaches wherein at least one of the one or more ocular media components is coupled to a movable track, wherein the movable track is configured to adjust a distance between the at least one of the one or more ocular media components and the curved reflectance standard (camera mounted on a translation stage [0059]).
Regarding to claim 159, wherein at least one of the one or more ocular media components is coupled to a rotary wheel, and wherein the rotary wheel is configured to selectively position the at least one of the one or more ocular media components in anterior of the curved reflectance standard (lens on a rotation stages [0057]).
Regarding to claim 160, Sapiens teaches further comprising a selectively deformable component coupled to at least one of the curved reflectance standard or at least one of the one or more ocular media components, wherein the selectively deformable component is configured to adjust a curvature of the curved reflectance standard or the at least one of the one or more ocular media components (deformable lens change its focal length by changing its shape, liquid lens controlled by electro-static deformation of the membrane containing the liquid [0052]).
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 eye model as taught by Yates to incorporate teaching of Sapiens, since retinal element and ocular media mounted on movable stages to change the distance between the lens and the camera was well known in the art as taught by Sapiens. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Yates with no change in their respective functions, configuring its lens and ocular media components to be mounted on motor, or using deformable lens, and camera (Retinal model) mounted on linear stage and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to allow for experimental simulation of aging, myopia and hyperopia ([0059]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 154, Yates, Wang and Sapiens together teach all limitations of claim 153 as set forth above.
Sapiens further teaches wherein: at least one of the one or more ocular media components is coupled to the curved reflectance standard (deformable lens and array detector [0046]); and the actuator is configured to move the curved reflectance standard and the at least one of the one or more ocular media components coupled to the curved reflectance standard (camera mounted on a linear stage allowing for changing the distance between the deformable lens and the camera [0059]).
Regarding to claim 162, Yates and Wang together teach all limitations of claim 161 as set forth above.
Yates and Wang do not teach a movable track and its details.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in eye models, Sapiens teaches a movable track (linear stage [0059]), wherein: at least one of the one or more ocular media components or the curved reflectance standard is coupled to the movable track; and the movable track is configured to move the at least one of the one or more ocular media components or the curved reflectance standard relative to the other to adjust a distance between the at least one of the one or more ocular media components and the curved reflectance standard (linear stage allowing changing the distance between the lens and the camera, representing retina, thus claimed curved reflectance [0059]).
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 eye model as taught by Yates to incorporate teaching of Sapiens, since retinal element and ocular media mounted on movable stages to change the distance between the lens and the camera was well known in the art as taught by Sapiens. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Yates with no change in their respective functions, configuring its lens and ocular media components to be mounted on motor, or using deformable lens, and camera (Retinal model) mounted on linear stage and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to allow for experimental simulation of aging, myopia and hyperopia ([0059]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 164-165 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendlow as applied to claim 163 above, and further in view of “Sapiens,” US 2020/0170500 (hereinafter Sapiens).
Regarding to claims 164-165, Mendlow together teach all limitations of claim 163 as set forth above.
Mendlow does not further teach moving the phantom with actuators.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in eye modelling, Sapiens teaches moving the phantom eye via one or more actuators coupled to the phantom eye relative the lighting assembly prior to imaging the phantom eye and further comprising adjusting a position of at least one of: the curved reflectance standard within the phantom eye, via one or more actuators coupled to the curved reflectance standard, prior to imaging the phantom eye; or at least one of the one or more ocular media components, via one or more actuators coupled to the at least one of the one or more ocular media components, prior to imaging the phantom eye (linear stage allowing changing the distance between the lens and the camera, representing retina, thus claimed curved reflectance [0059]-[0060]).
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 eye model as taught by Mendlow to incorporate teaching of Sapiens, since retinal element and ocular media mounted on movable stages to change the distance between the lens and the camera was well known in the art as taught by Sapiens. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mendlow with no change in their respective functions, configuring its lens and ocular media components to be mounted on motor, or using deformable lens, and camera (Retinal model) mounted on linear stage and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to allow for experimental simulation of aging, myopia and hyperopia ([0059]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 166 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Mendlow et al.,” US 2022/02515584 (hereinafter Mendlow) and “Yazawa,” US 2021/0307602 (hereinafter Yazawa).
Regarding to 166, Mendlow teaches a system, comprising:
a phantom eye (model eye [0008], calibration phantom [0091]);
a processor (processor [0009]) in communication with the lighting assembly and programmed to correct a spectral retinal image with a spectral calibration image of the phantom eye (correct by transformation of an image acquired with a calibration method using a calibration phantom [0115], [0122], [0173]; corrected calibration function to images acquired with the initial calibration of imaging device [0009]; provide a transformation to rescale images according to a correct calibration [0128], calibration image and subsequent images rescaled by applying the function [0199]).
Mendlow teaches acquiring image using a light assembly (OCT imaging [0117], scanning beams of light is directed to the sample, retina or surface of a calibration phantom and reflected radiation to obtain the signal that becomes an OCT image [0117]) but does not specifically disclose lighting assembly as claimed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor of eye phantom, Yazawa teaches optical imaging system and method using a model eye ([0060]) the imaging comprises light source emitting light toward the model eye and the light reflected or scattered at model retina of the model eye passes through the fiber coupled so as to be incident to the sensor ([0063]).
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 OCT imaging as taught by Mendlow to incorporate teaching of Yazawa, since light assembly comprising light source and detector was well known in the art as taught by Yazawa. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mendlow with no change in their respective functions, configuring its OCT to use its source to illuminate the phantom and sensor to receive light reflected at model, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide tomographic images and OCT data ([0039]) , and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 167-169 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendlow and Yazawa as applied to claim 166 above, and further in view of “Sapiens,” US 2020/0170500 (hereinafter Sapiens).
Regarding to claims 167-169, Mendlow and Yazawa together teach all limitations of claim 166 as set forth above.
Mendlow and Yazawa do not further teach actuators and deformable components as claimed.
Mendlow further teaches the phantom eye comprises a curved reflectance standard and one or more ocular media components positioned between the curved reflectance standard and the lighting assembly (light focusing light from imaging device to the retina film plane [0007]).
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in eye modelling, Sapiens teaches following limitations:
Of claim 167, further comprising an actuator, wherein: the actuator is coupled to the curved reflectance standard or to at least one of the one or more ocular media components (camera mounted on a linear stage [0059]);
the processor is in communication with the actuator ( processing unit [0060]); and
the processor is programmed to drive the actuator to move the curved reflectance standard or the at least one of the one or more ocular media components relative the other (linear stage allowing changing the distance between the lens and the camera, representing retina, thus claimed curved reflectance [0059]-[0060], entirety of the component connected to processing unit and controlled the model [0060]).
Of claim 168, further comprising a selectively deformable component, wherein:
the phantom eye comprises one or more ocular media components (deformable lens [0052]);
the selectively deformable component is coupled to at least one of the one or more ocular media components (deformable lens [0052]);
the processor is in communication with the selectively deformable component; and the processor is programmed to deform the selectively deformable component to adjust a curvature of the at least one of the one or more ocular media components (changing its shape to change focal length by controlling electrostatic deformation of the membrane containing the liquid [0052])
Regarding to claim 169, Sapiens teaches wherein the processor is programmed to adjust one or more components of the phantom eye such that the phantom eye approximates one or more optical properties of a biological eye featured in the spectral retinal image (by adjusting distance between the deformable lens and the camera representing retina, allows aging, myopia and hyperopia conditions [0059]). Thus, adjusting phantom eye components as disclosed by Sapiens in Mendlow’s eye phantom, Mendlow can create phantom eye approximates the conditions in real eye.
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 eye model as taught by Mendlow to incorporate teaching of Sapiens, since retinal element and ocular media mounted on movable stages to change the distance between the lens and the camera was well known in the art as taught by Sapiens. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Mendlow with no change in their respective functions, configuring its lens and ocular media components to be mounted on motor, or using deformable lens, and camera (Retinal model) mounted on linear stage and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to allow for experimental simulation of aging, myopia and hyperopia ([0059]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee (US2022/0000356) teaches eye phantom for OCT ([0008]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 pm.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights