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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashok et al. (PGPUB 20200242768).
Regarding claim 1, Ashok discloses a retinal imaging system (10-2), comprising:
an eyepiece lens assembly ([0032], not illustrated);
an image sensor adapted to acquire a retinal image of an eye through the eyepiece lens assembly (46); and
a controller communicatively coupled to the image sensor (13), the controller including logic that when executed causes the retinal imaging system to perform operations including:
obtaining an indication of a pathology of interest (POI) related to the eye ([0081]-[0082] a region of suspected disorder is selected);
selecting an eyebox location for an eyebox of the retinal imaging system based at least in part on the POI, wherein the eyebox corresponds to a bound region in space defined relative to the eyepiece lens assembly ([0083]); and
acquiring the retinal image of the eye when the eye is determined to be positioned within the eyebox ([0088]-[0089]).
Regarding claim 8, Ashok discloses wherein the eyebox location associated with the POI indicated as diabetic retinopathy is different than the eyebox location associated with the POI indicated as glaucoma ([0081] identify a disorder. The region of interest of glaucoma vs diabetic retinopathy is different since glaucoma is defined as a disease of the optic nerve and retinopathy is a disease of the blood vessels. Further, the region of interest would completely subjective to the presentation of the disease within the patient. Retinopathy could originate adjacent or further away from the optic nerve so that a ROI may or may not overlap the optic nerve. Therefore, it is inherent that the ROI would be different for the two diseases in most, if not all, patients.).
Regarding claim 9, Ashok discloses further comprising a dynamic fixation target optically coupled to the eyepiece lens assembly such that the dynamic fixation target is viewable through the eyepiece lens assembly ([0079]), the dynamic fixation target electrically coupled to the controller ([0079]), and wherein the controller includes further logic that when executed causes the retinal imaging system to perform additional operations including: adjusting a fixation location of the dynamic fixation target based at least in part upon the POI or the eyebox location selected for the POI ([0080]).
Regarding claim 10, Ashok discloses wherein the dynamic fixation target comprises a dynamic fixation image output from a display, the dynamic fixation image comprising:
an eyebox reference rendered to a first position on the display selected based at least in part upon the POI and the eyebox location ([0086]); and
an eye location reference rendered to a second position on the display based at least in part up tracking a real-time position of the eye ([0079]-[0080]).
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-6, 11-14 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashok in view of Chen et al. (PGPUB 20170116459).
Regarding claim 2, Ashok does not disclose wherein the controller includes further logic that when executed causes the retinal imaging system to perform additional operations including:
determining whether a sidedness of the eye is either a right-sided eye or a left- sided eye; and selecting the eyebox location based at least in part on both the POI and the sidedness of the eye.
However, Chen teaches a retinal imaging device (Abst) wherein the controller includes further logic that when executed causes the retinal imaging system to perform additional operations including:
determining whether a sidedness of the eye is either a right-sided eye or a left- sided eye ([0055]); and selecting the eyebox location based at least in part on both the POI and the sidedness of the eye (340, feature extraction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ashok and Chen such that the system determined if the image was of a left or right eye and used that information to further constrain the region of interest motivated by improving pathology determination.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ashok discloses wherein the eyebox location is different for the right-sided eye than the left-sided eye ([0055] of Chen and note that a left eyebox is necessarily at a different location than a right eyebox).
Regarding claim 4, modified Ashok discloses wherein the sidedness of the eye is determined based at least in part upon manual user input (the image of the user’s eye requires a manual placement of the eye into the imaging location – any image of a user necessarily requires manual manipulation of said user).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ashok discloses wherein the sidedness of the eye is automatically determined by the retinal imaging system based at least in part upon a preliminary image of the eye ([0055] the matching step is automated).
Regarding claim 6, modified Ashok discloses further comprising an illuminator (2-1) coupled to the controller and positioned to illuminate the eye, wherein the controller includes further logic that when executed causes the retinal imaging system to perform additional operations including:
adjusting an illumination pattern output from the illuminator based at least in part upon the POI or the sidedness of the eye ([0057] where light is guided towards the region of interest based on the UWF).
Regarding claim 11, Ashok does not disclose further comprising an alignment tracking camera system coupled to the controller to track a real-time position of a pupil or an iris of the eye, and wherein the controller includes further logic that when executed causes the retinal imaging system to perform additional operations including: triggering acquisition of a burst of retinal images, including the retinal image, with the image sensor when the real-time position of the pupil or the iris is determined to fall within the eyebox based upon feedback from the alignment tracking camera system.
However, Chen teaches an alignment tracking camera system coupled to the controller to track a real-time position of a pupil or an iris of the eye ([0004] and [042]), and wherein the controller includes further logic that when executed causes the retinal imaging system to perform additional operations including:
triggering acquisition of a burst of retinal images, including the retinal image, with the image sensor when the real-time position of the pupil or the iris is determined to fall within the eyebox based upon feedback from the alignment tracking camera system ([0042]-[0043]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ashok and Chen such that the system tracked the iris and/or pupil and performed imaging once the eye was in a specific position motivated by improving image acquisition efficiency.
Regarding claim 12, Ashok discloses a method of imaging a retina of an eye with a retinal imaging system, the method comprising:
wherein an eyebox corresponds to a bound region in space defined relative to the eyepiece lens assembly ([0083]); and
acquiring the retinal image of the eye when the eye is determined to be positioned within the eyebox ([0088]-[0089]).
Ashok does not disclose determining whether a sidedness of the eye is either a right-sided eye or a left- sided eye; selecting an eyebox location for an eyebox of the retinal imaging system based at least in part on the sidedness,
However, Chen teaches a retinal imaging device (Abst) determining whether a sidedness of the eye is either a right-sided eye or a left- sided eye; selecting an eyebox location for an eyebox of the retinal imaging system based at least in part on the sidedness,([0055]); and selecting the eyebox location based at least in part on both the POI and the sidedness of the eye (340, feature extraction).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine Ashok and Chen such that the system determined if the image was of a left or right eye and used that information to further constrain the region of interest motivated by improving pathology determination.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ashok discloses obtaining an indication of a pathology of interest (POI) related to the eye; and selecting the eyebox location based at least in part on both the POI and the sidedness of the eye ([0081]-[0082] a region of suspected disorder is selected).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ashok discloses further comprising: adjusting an illumination pattern for illuminating the eye based at least in part upon the sidedness of the eye and the POI ([0057] where light is guided towards the region of interest based on the UWF and the sidedness of the eye would determine the direction by which the pattern would adjust).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ashok discloses further comprising:
adjusting a fixation location of a dynamic fixation image viewable through the eyepiece lens assembly based upon at least one of the POI or the eye sidedness ([0080]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Ashok discloses wherein adjusting the fixation location of the dynamic fixation image comprises: displaying an eyebox reference to a first position within the dynamic fixation image, the first position selected based upon at least one of the POI or the eye sidedness ([0086]); and
displaying an eye location reference to a second position within the dynamic fixation image, the second position determined based at least in part up tracking a real-time position of the eye ([0079]-[0080]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Ashok discloses wherein the sidedness of the eye is determined based at least in part upon manual user input (the image of the user’s eye requires a manual placement of the eye into the imaging location – any image of a user necessarily requires manual manipulation of said user).
Regarding claim 19, modified Ashok wherein the sidedness of the eye is automatically determined by the retinal imaging system based at least in part upon a preliminary image of the eye ([0055] the matching step is automated).
Regarding claim 20, modified Ashok discloses further comprising: tracking a real-time position of a pupil or an iris of the eye with an alignment tracking camera system distinct from the image sensor ([0004] and [0042] of Chen); and triggering acquisition of a burst of retinal images, including the retinal image, with the image sensor when the real-time position of the pupil or the iris is determined to fall within the eyebox based upon feedback from the alignment tracking camera system ([0042]-[0043] of Chen).
Claims 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashok in view of Chen and further in view of Su et al. (PGPUB 20020060778).
Regarding claim 7, modified Ashok does not disclose wherein the illuminator comprises a dynamic ring illuminator that encircles an optical path extending between the eyepiece lens assembly and the image sensor to illuminate a retina of the eye through the eyepiece lens assembly.
However, Su teaches a retina imaging system t wherein the illuminator comprises a dynamic ring illuminator (28) that encircles an optical path extending between the eyepiece lens assembly and the image sensor to illuminate a retina of the eye through the eyepiece lens assembly ([0040] and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Ashok and Su such that the system included a ring light motivated by improving image contrast ([0040]).
Regarding claim 15, modified Ashok does not disclose wherein the illuminator comprises a dynamic ring illuminator that encircles an optical path extending between the eyepiece lens assembly and the image sensor to illuminate a retina of the eye through the eyepiece lens assembly.
However, Su teaches a retina imaging system t wherein the illuminator comprises a dynamic ring illuminator (28) that encircles an optical path extending between the eyepiece lens assembly and the image sensor to illuminate a retina of the eye through the eyepiece lens assembly ([0040] and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art as of the effective filing date of the invention to combine modified Ashok and Su such that the system included a ring light motivated by improving image contrast ([0040]).
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRAVIS S FISSEL whose telephone number is (313)446-6573. The examiner can normally be reached on 9AM-5PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Stephone Allen can be reached on (571) 272-2434. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TRAVIS S FISSEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights