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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group IV, claims 14, 21 and 25 in the reply filed on August 3, 2026 is acknowledged. Accordingly claims 11-13, 15-20 and 22-24 are considered withdrawn.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on September 17, 2024, February 27, 2026 and April 17, 2026 comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) 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) because the claim limitations 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 limitations are:
“acquire a measurement value of an attribute of an eye to be examined, the attribute being at least one of a plurality of characteristics of an anterior segment and a plurality of dimension values of the eye to be examined” in claim 14;
“determine an estimated age of the eye to be examined on a basis of the measurement value and correspondence information indicating a correspondence between a value of the attribute and an age of an eyeball, wherein a plurality of the attributes are an astigmatism axis angle, a characteristic of a corner angle, a characteristic of a lens, an anterior chamber depth, and an eye axis length” in claim 14;
“the controller is configured to: acquire the measurement value for each of the plurality of attributes, and determine the estimated age for the attribute on a basis of the measurement value and the correspondence information with respect to each of the plurality of attributes, and determines the final estimated age of the eye to be examined on a basis of the plurality of determined estimated ages” in claim 14;
“acquiring a measurement value of an attribute of an eye to be examined, the attribute being at least one of a plurality of characteristics of an anterior segment and a plurality of dimension values of the eye to be examined” in claim 21 and 25;
“determining an estimated age of the eye to be examined on a basis of the measurement value and correspondence information indicating a correspondence between a value of the attribute and an age of an eyeball, wherein a plurality of the attributes are an astigmatism axis angle, a characteristic of a corner angle, a characteristic of a lens, an anterior chamber depth, and an eye axis length” in claim 21 and 25;
“in the acquiring, the measurement value is acquired for each of the plurality of attributes” in claim 21 and 25;
“in the determining, the estimated age for the attribute is determined on a basis of the measurement value and the correspondence information with respect to each of the plurality of attributes, and the final estimated age of the eye to be examined is determined on a basis of the plurality of determined estimated ages” in claim 21 and 25.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
Claims 14, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 14, 21 and 25 “determine an estimated age of the eye to be examined on a basis of the measurement value and correspondence information indicating a correspondence between a value of the attribute and an age of an eyeball, wherein a plurality of the attributes are an astigmatism axis angle, a characteristic of a corner angle, a characteristic of a lens, an anterior chamber depth, and an eye axis length” has been interpreted under 112(f). After reviewing the specification the examiner found no disclosure of acts for performing the recited function determination of the eye’s age (e.g. an algorithm). When a limitation is interpreted under 112(f) “one must set forth in the specification an adequate disclosure showing what is meant by that language. If an applicant fails to set forth an adequate disclosure, the applicant has in effect failed to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by the 35 U.S.C. 112(b)” In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d 1189, 1195, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1850 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (en banc), see MPEP 2181.
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.
Claims 14, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Claims 14, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. The claims recite a method to design an optical device on a computer. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim limitations are a directed to designing an estimation system/method that can be performed mentally or with the aid of pen and paper, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III. Further, in the situations merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept – the claim is considered to recite a mental process, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as set forth in the analysis below following the current subject matter guidance.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes. The claims recite a steps and, therefore, is a system/method.
2A - Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes. The claims recite the limitations of estimating an age based on data. There is nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper. Thus, this limitation is a mental process.
2A - Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No, there are no other limitations so there is no practical application, i.e. the claims are directed to the abstract idea.
2B: Claim provides an Inventive Concept?
No. The claims as a whole merely require the abstract mental of estimating age. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 14, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Coleman US Patent Application Publication 2018/0140180.
Regarding claim 14 Coleman discloses an estimation system (title) comprising: a controller configured to: acquire a measurement value of an attribute of an eye to be examined (inter alia paragraph [0029] “may be used with all types of fundus cameras, with OCT angiography (OCT-A), with non-mydriatic fundus photography or smartphone fundus imaging for automatic identification and classification of the optic disc and/or with photographs of the optic disc” e.g. see figure 2b), the attribute being at least one of a plurality of characteristics of an anterior segment and a plurality of dimension values of the eye to be examined (inter alai paragraphs [0067 & 0071-73] “algorithms may be adapted to analyse the following: … appearance/surface area/pattern/volume of the optic nerve head/vasculature anterior”); and determine an estimated age of the eye to be examined on a basis of the measurement value and correspondence information indicating a correspondence between a value of the attribute and an age of an eyeball (inter alia paragraph [0086] “includes automatic high-level feature extraction and classification of the image, for any of the purposes described herein … age determination”), wherein a plurality of the attributes are an astigmatism axis angle (inter alia paragraphs [0067-68] “algorithms may be adapted to analyse the following: … astigmatic), a characteristic of a corner angle (inter alia paragraphs [0067-68] “algorithms may be adapted to analyse the following: … for different population groups and subsets/racial groups, including each group subset with different size and shaped eyes”), a characteristic of a lens (inter alia paragraphs [0067-68] “algorithms may be adapted to analyse the following: … including myopic/hypermetropic/astigmatic), an anterior chamber depth (inter alai paragraphs [0067 & 0071-73] “algorithms may be adapted to analyse the following: … appearance/surface area/pattern/volume of the optic nerve head/vasculature anterior”), and an eye axis length (inter alai paragraphs [0067 & 0071-73] “algorithms may be adapted to analyse the following: … appearance/surface area/pattern/volume of the optic nerve head/vasculature anterior”), and the controller is configured to: acquire the measurement value for each of the plurality of attributes, and determine the estimated age for the attribute on a basis of the measurement value and the correspondence information with respect to each of the plurality of attributes, and determines the final estimated age of the eye to be examined on a basis of the plurality of determined estimated ages (inter alia paragraph [0086] “includes automatic high-level feature extraction and classification of the image, for any of the purposes described herein … age determination”).
Regarding claim 21 Coleman discloses an estimation method (title e.g. figure 15b) comprising: acquiring a measurement value of an attribute of an eye to be examined (e.g. step 810b), the attribute being at least one of a plurality of characteristics of an anterior segment and a plurality of dimension values of the eye to be examined (inter alia paragraph [0029]); and determining an estimated age of the eye to be examined on a basis of the measurement value and correspondence information indicating a correspondence between a value of the attribute and an age of an eyeball (e.g. step 830b), wherein a plurality of the attributes are an astigmatism axis angle, a characteristic of a corner angle, a characteristic of a lens, an anterior chamber depth, and an eye axis length, in the acquiring, the measurement value is acquired for each of the plurality of attributes (inter alia paragraphs [0067-68 & 0071-73), and in the determining, the estimated age for the attribute is determined on a basis of the measurement value and the correspondence information with respect to each of the plurality of attributes, and the final estimated age of the eye to be examined is determined on a basis of the plurality of determined estimated ages (inter alia paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 25 Coleman discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium having a program stored thereon, the program causing a computer to execute (inter alia paragraph [0083] “present disclosure provides a computer-implemented method” e.g. see figure 17 illustrating a configuration of a computing device 900 which includes various hardware and software components that function to perform the imaging and classification processes according to the present disclosure) the method of claim 21 (as set forth above).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Held et al. US Patent Application Publication 2020/0050824, of record; in regards to a similar invention that collects ocular metric data associated with ocular features of a user's eye calculates, based on analysis of the ocular metric data, an estimate of a user’s age (see abstract and figures 1-5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to George G King whose telephone number is (303)297-4273. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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.
/George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 August 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights