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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/885,166 filed on September 13, 2024 is presented for examination by the examiner.
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.
Priority
As required by the M.P.E.P. 214.03, acknowledgement is made of applicant’s claim for priority based on applications filed on September 14, 2023 (EP 23197492.4). Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 37 CFR 1.55, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The applicant’s drawings submitted on September 13, 2024 are acceptable for examination purposes.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statements dated 12/11/2024; 8/7/2025 and 5/29/2026 are acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation " the discontinuity at the boundary of the second ophthalmic image" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In particular, claim 12 depends from claim 9 which does not include detecting a discontinuity at the boundary of the second ophthalmic image. Rather this feature was introduced in claim 11. For the purpose of applying prior art, claim 12 will be construed as depending from claim 11. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-5, 8-10 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Durbin et al. US 2014/0276025 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Durbin).
Regarding claim 1, Durbin teaches “A multi-modal ophthalmic imaging system (Fig. 2 paragraph [0033]: “a multimodal ophthalmic imaging system combining and OCT imaging modality with a line scanning ophthalmoscope, a fundus imaging modality.”) for acquiring ophthalmic images of a patient’s eye (e.g. paragraphs [0033]-[0035]: “a fundus image… OCT image data… an FA image… an OCT functional image”), the multi-modal ophthalmic imaging system comprising:
a first imaging module (paragraph [0042]: “a line-scan ophthalmoscope (LSO)”, elements 201, 209 etc.), operable in a first imaging modality (LSO, paragraph [0046]: “fundus imaging modality”), for acquiring a first ophthalmic image of the patient’s eye (paragraph [0043]: “real-time images of the retina.”);
one or more further imaging modules (at least OCT system 220), each operable in a respective imaging modality (OCT), wherein each imaging modality of the one or more further imaging modules is different to the first imaging modality (e.g. paragraphs [0033], [0037]: “OCT imaging modality… optical coherence tomography” tomographic and fundus imaging are different modalities); and
a control module (paragraphs [0066]-[0069]: “imaging control station… one or more regions-of-interest (ROIs) are identified and marked. This could be done automatically… An OCT scan type… is automatically recommended, that intersects the ROIs in an optimal way.”) arranged to:
detect an anomaly in the first ophthalmic image acquired by the first imaging module (e.g. paragraph [0051]: “An example of such a fundus image is shown in FIG. 3. This image is then automatically processed using algorithms (see, e.g., Deckert et al. 2005) to find regions-of-interest (301)… These regions-of-interest… could also be any pathological regions, e.g., drusen or geographic atrophy (GA) areas.”);
determine a region of interest in the patient’s eye (e.g. paragraph [0051]: “automated analysis of the fundus image enables the accurate localization of the regions-of-interest”) based on the detected anomaly in the first ophthalmic image (e.g. paragraph [0051]: “These regions-of-interest… could also be any pathological regions, e.g., drusen or geographic atrophy (GA) areas”), wherein the determined region of interest is a region within the patient’s eye that is predicted to contain a second anomaly (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “complimentary information regarding any potential pathologies located in or near the regions-of-interest” see exemplary pathologies listed in paragraph [0049]. Only some of these pathologies are detectable anomalies in a fundus image while others require a tomographical depth scan to be revealed. Thus, the region of interest that will be imaged with the second imaging modality of an OCT scan is “predicted” to contain potential pathologies that can only be gleaned by this complimentary information.);
determine, based on the second anomaly, a second imaging modality for imaging the determined region of interest (e.g. paragraph [0052]: “information thus obtained can be used to control the scan of a second imaging modality (e.g., OCT) of these regions-of-interest.”), the second imaging modality being different from the first imaging modality (OCT is different than the fundus image);
select, from the one or more further imaging modules, a second imaging module which is operable in the determined second imaging modality (e.g. paragraph [0052]: “information thus obtained can be used to control the scan of a second imaging modality (e.g., OCT) of these regions-of-interest.”); and
control the selected second imaging module to acquire a second ophthalmic image of the determined region of interest (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “engaging additional imaging modalities to provide complimentary information regarding any potential pathologies located in or near the regions-of-interest.”, paragraph [0052]: “the scan of a second imaging modality (e.g., OCT) of these regions-of-interest.”).”
Regarding claim 2, Durbin teaches “The ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the anomaly detected in the first ophthalmic image is indicative of a first stage of a multi-stage ocular disease and wherein the second anomaly is indicative of a second stage of the multi-stage ocular disease (paragraph [0048]: “complimentary information regarding any potential pathologies located in or near the regions-of-interest. Thus providing information that can aid in elucidating the nature, extent, and progression of disease.” Thus, amongst the possible anomalies detected in the first ophthalmic image are those indicative of an early stage of a progressive disease, and amongst the potential second anomalies are those that would be indicative of a progression of a disease. See also paragraphs [0025]-[0030] discussing a variety of progressive eye disorders and their markers within fundus and OCT imaging modalities.).”
Regarding claim 3, Durbin teaches “The ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the first imaging module comprises a scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) (paragraph [0042]: “a line-scan ophthalmoscope (LSO)”), and the first ophthalmic image is a fundus image of the patient’s eye (paragraph [0046]: “fundus imaging modality”).”
Regarding claim 4, Durbin teaches “The ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the control module is further arranged to determine, based on the second anomaly (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “potential pathologies located in or near the regions-of-interest”), one or more image acquisition parameters of the second imaging module for controlling the second imaging module to acquire the second ophthalmic image of the determined region of interest (paragraph [0052]: “information thus obtained can be used to control the scan of a second imaging modality (e.g., OCT) of these regions-of-interest. The scan parameters of the second imaging modality could be changed based on the information provided by first imaging modality such as extent of the pathology. The embodiments proposed herein are for the automatic determination via processing of the following scan parameters.” see also paragraphs [0053]-[0056] Given that the complimentary imaging is being undertaken to uncover potential pathologies, the automatically determined scan parameters are chosen based on being appropriate for detecting the potential pathologies.).”
Regarding claim 5, Durbin teaches “The ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the control module is communicatively coupled to a database comprising a medical record indicative of a medical history of the patient (paragraph [0063]: “fundus images (taken at different times) enables detection of various vascular and non-vascular regions of change in the eye (see, e.g., Iyer et al., 2006, 2007)… the old scan…. ), and wherein the control module is arranged to retrieve the medical record of the patient from the database and determine the region of interest based on both the detected anomaly (paragraph [0063]: “in cases where interesting changes are occurring at other places, an aspect of the present application will direct the OCT to acquire data at the region-of-interest”) and the medical history of the patient. (paragraph [0063]: “a "repeat scan" is usually placed at the exact same region as the old scan… stored and upon a repeat visit by a patient for subsequent examination, can then be recalled and used for re-imaging of the same regions-of-interest (or pathology) so as to be able to detect disease progression.”).”
Regarding claim 8, Durbin teaches “The ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in Claim 1, wherein the control module is arranged to:
determine a second region of interest based on the detected anomaly (paragraph [0057]: “The system could also detect multiple regions-of-interest for the same eye” and paragraph [0051]: “These regions-of-interest could be… any pathological regions, e.g., drusen or geographic atrophy (GA) areas.”) wherein the second region of interest is a region that contains the detected anomaly (see Fig. 3, region of interest 303 contains the detected anomalies);
determine, based on the detected anomaly, a third imaging modality for imaging the determined second region of interest (OCT, paragraph [0057]: “detect multiple regions-of-interest for the same eye and guide the acquisition of multiple OCT datasets from these regions”), the third imaging modality being different from the first imaging modality (OCT is different from fundus imaging);
select, from the one or more further imaging modules, a third imaging module which is operable in the determined third imaging modality (the OCT system 220); and
control the selected third imaging module to acquire a third ophthalmic image of the determined second region of interest (paragraph [0057]: “guide the acquisition of multiple OCT datasets”).”
Regarding claim 9, Durbin teaches “A method (see steps below) of imaging a patient’s eye (e.g. paragraphs [0033]-[0035]: “a fundus image… OCT image data… an FA image… an OCT functional image”), the method comprising:
acquiring a first ophthalmic image of the patient’s eye (paragraph [0043]: “real-time images of the retina.”) using a first imaging module (paragraph [0042]: “a line-scan ophthalmoscope (LSO)”, elements 201, 209 etc.) operating in a first imaging modality (LSO, paragraph [0046]: “fundus imaging modality”);
detecting an anomaly in the first ophthalmic image acquired by the first ophthalmic imaging module (e.g. paragraph [0051]: “An example of such a fundus image is shown in FIG. 3. This image is then automatically processed using algorithms (see, e.g., Deckert et al. 2005) to find regions-of-interest (301)… These regions-of-interest… could also be any pathological regions, e.g., drusen or geographic atrophy (GA) areas.” emphasis added);
determining a region of interest in the patient’s eye (e.g. paragraph [0051]: “automated analysis of the fundus image enables the accurate localization of the regions-of-interest”) based on the detected anomaly in the first ophthalmic image (e.g. paragraph [0051]: “An example of such a fundus image is shown in FIG. 3. This image is then automatically processed using algorithms (see, e.g., Deckert et al. 2005) to find regions-of-interest (301)… These regions-of-interest… could also be any pathological regions, e.g., drusen or geographic atrophy (GA) areas.”), wherein the determined region of interest is a region within the patient’s eye that is predicted to contain a second anomaly (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “complimentary information regarding any potential pathologies located in or near the regions-of-interest” see exemplary pathologies listed in paragraph [0049]. Only some of these pathologies are detectable anomalies in a fundus image while others require a tomographical depth scan to be revealed. Thus, the region of interest that will be imaged with the second imaging modality of an OCT scan is “predicted” to contain potential pathologies that can only be gleaned by this complimentary information.);
determining, based on the second anomaly, a second imaging modality for imaging the determined region of interest (e.g. paragraph [0052]: “information thus obtained can be used to control the scan of a second imaging modality (e.g., OCT) of these regions-of-interest.”), the second imaging modality being different from the first imaging modality (OCT is different than the fundus image); and
acquiring a second ophthalmic image of the determined region of interest using a second imaging module operating in the determined second imaging modality (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “engaging additional imaging modalities to provide complimentary information regarding any potential pathologies located in or near the regions-of-interest.”, paragraph [0052]: “the scan of a second imaging modality (e.g., OCT) of these regions-of-interest.”).”
Regarding claim 10, Durbin teaches “The method as claimed in Claim 9, wherein the anomaly detected in the first ophthalmic image is indicative of a first stage of a multi-stage ocular disease and wherein the second anomaly is indicative of a second stage of the multi-stage ocular disease (paragraph [0048]: “complimentary information regarding any potential pathologies located in or near the regions-of-interest. Thus providing information that can aid in elucidating the nature, extent, and progression of disease.” Thus, amongst the possible anomalies detected in the first ophthalmic image are those indicative of an early stage of a progressive disease, and amongst the potential second anomalies are those that would be indicative of a progression of a disease. See also paragraphs [0025]-[0030] discussing a variety of progressive eye disorders and their markers within fundus and OCT imaging modalities.).”
Regarding claim 13, Durbin teaches “The method as claimed in Claim 9, comprising receiving medical records of the patient containing a medical history of the patient (paragraph [0063]: “fundus images (taken at different times) enables detection of various vascular and non-vascular regions of change in the eye (see, e.g., Iyer et al., 2006, 2007)… the old scan…. ), wherein determining the region of interest is based on a combination of the detected anomaly in the first ophthalmic image (paragraph [0063]: “in cases where interesting changes are occurring at other places, an aspect of the present application will direct the OCT to acquire data at the region-of-interest”) and the received medical history of the patient (paragraph [0063]: “a "repeat scan" is usually placed at the exact same region as the old scan… stored and upon a repeat visit by a patient for subsequent examination, can then be recalled and used for re-imaging of the same regions-of-interest (or pathology) so as to be able to detect disease progression.”).”
Regarding claim 14, Durbin teaches “The method as claimed in Claim 9, further comprising determining, based on the second anomaly (e.g. paragraph [0048]: “potential pathologies located in or near the regions-of-interest”), one or more image acquisition parameters of the second imaging module and operating the second imaging module in the determined image acquisition parameters to acquire the second ophthalmic image (paragraph [0052]: “information thus obtained can be used to control the scan of a second imaging modality (e.g., OCT) of these regions-of-interest. The scan parameters of the second imaging modality could be changed based on the information provided by first imaging modality such as extent of the pathology. The embodiments proposed herein are for the automatic determination via processing of the following scan parameters.” see also paragraphs [0053]-[0056] Given that the complimentary imaging is being undertaken to uncover potential pathologies, the automatically determined scan parameters are chosen based on being appropriate for detecting the potential pathologies.).”
Regarding claim 15, Durbin teaches “The method as claimed in Claim 9, further comprising:
determining a second region of interest based on the detected anomaly (paragraph [0057]: “The system could also detect multiple regions-of-interest for the same eye” and paragraph [0051]: “These regions-of-interest could be… any pathological regions, e.g., drusen or geographic atrophy (GA) areas.”), wherein the second region of interest is a region that contains the detected anomaly (see Fig. 3, region of interest 303 contains the detected anomalies);
determining, based on the detected anomaly, a third imaging modality for imaging the determined second region of interest (OCT, paragraph [0057]: “detect multiple regions-of-interest for the same eye and guide the acquisition of multiple OCT datasets from these regions”), the third imaging modality being different from the first imaging modality (OCT is different from fundus imaging);
selecting, from the one or more further imaging modules, a third imaging module which is operable in the determined third imaging modality (the OCT system 220); and
controlling the selected third imaging module to acquire a third ophthalmic image of the determined second region of interest (paragraph [0057]: “guide the acquisition of multiple OCT datasets”).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 6-7 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Durbin et al. US 2014/0276025 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Durbin) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Miyasa et al. US 2012/0140179 A1 (cited in an IDS, hereafter Miyasa).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Durbin teaches “The ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in Claim 1,” and Durbin further teaches (claim 7) “wherein the control module is arranged… to
increase a size of the determined region of interest to generate an enlarged region of interest (paragraph [0059]: “if a large geographic atrophy or area of pathological disturbance is detected from the fundus imaging, then it will be possible for the system to automatically change the field-of-view of the OCT image so that it captures the whole region of the pathological disturbance.”); and
control the second imaging module to acquire an ophthalmic image of the enlarged region of interest (paragraph [0059]: “captures the whole region of the pathological disturbance.”).”
However, Durbin fails to explicitly teach (claim 6) “wherein the control module is configured to detect a discontinuity at a boundary of the second ophthalmic image, wherein the discontinuity at the boundary is indicative of cropping of the second anomaly located within the second ophthalmic image” and (claim 7) “wherein the control module is arranged, in response to detecting the discontinuity at the boundary of the second image.”
Miyasa teaches a multi-mode ophthalmic measuring device that acquires fundus images (Fig. 5A) and OCT measurements in regions of interest (Fig. 5A two-dimensional OCT measurement area RXY).
Miyasa further teaches (claim 6) “wherein the control module is configured to detect a discontinuity at a boundary of the second ophthalmic image (Fig. 9 “inner limiting membrane has been cut off” Fig. 10 “retinal pigment epithelium has been cut off” both of which are discontinuities at the upper or lower boundaries of the second ophthalmic image, i.e. the OCT scan images. See explanations in e.g. paragraphs [0053]-[0059]), wherein the discontinuity at the boundary is indicative of cropping of the second anomaly located within the second ophthalmic image (the result of the cropping means that not all of the desired layers have been fully imaged, and thus that the second anomaly could have been missed or cropped in the second image).”
(claim 7) “The ophthalmic imaging system as claimed in Claim 6, wherein the control module is arranged, in response to detecting the discontinuity at the boundary of the second image (Fig. 3 step S307), to
increase a size of the determined region of interest to generate an enlarged region of interest (Fig. 3 step S311 paragraph [0061]: “In step S311, the moving amount setting unit 109 sets a moving amount for automatically adjusting the measuring depth in the depth direction with respect to the retina, based on the retina layer cutoff detection data acquired in step S310.”); and
control the second imaging module to acquire an ophthalmic image of the enlarged region of interest (paragraph [0061]: “Next, the tomogram acquisition unit 103 acquires tomogram image data based on the moving amount that was set.”).”
Miyasa further teaches (paragraph [0003]): “The area of retina layers between the inner limiting membrane A and the retinal pigment epithelium boundary B is extremely useful when making a diagnosis with use of OCT tomograms since the anatomical characteristics of illnesses such as glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration, which are the main causes of vision loss, appear in this area. For this reason, when capturing a tomogram, it is critical to perform imaging such that this area is not cut off at the upper edge or lower edge in the depth direction of the tomogram.”
(paragraph [0084]): “the imaging area in the depth direction is automatically adjusted so that the retina layers do not protrude outside the imaging area in the depth direction in the tomograms. This enables preventing an imaging mistake in which a retina layer has been cut off in a tomogram obtained after capturing the three-dimensional data.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a step of determining if there are any discontinuities at the upper or lower boundaries of the OCT scan images as taught by Miyasa so that the OCT scan region can be enlarged to include all of the desired layers of the eye as taught by Miyasa in the device of Durbin because Miyasa teaches that it is critical to perform imaging such that all of the retinal layers between inner limiting membrane A and the retinal pigment epithelium boundary B are imaged in order to enable making a diagnosis with the use of OCT tomograms (Miyasa paragraphs [0003] and [0084]).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Durbin teaches “The method as claimed in Claim 9,… increasing a size of the determined region of interest to generate an enlarged region of interest (paragraph [0059]: “if a large geographic atrophy or area of pathological disturbance is detected from the fundus imaging, then it will be possible for the system to automatically change the field-of-view of the OCT image so that it captures the whole region of the pathological disturbance.”) and acquiring a further ophthalmic image of the enlarged region of interest (paragraph [0059]: “captures the whole region of the pathological disturbance.”).”
However, Durbin fails to teach (claim 11) “further comprising determining if the second anomaly is captured within the second ophthalmic image by detecting a discontinuity at a boundary of the second ophthalmic image, wherein detecting the presence of a discontinuity at the boundary is indicative of cropping of the second anomaly within the second ophthalmic image.” and (claim 12) “comprising, in response to detecting the presence of the discontinuity at the boundary of the second ophthalmic image.”
Miyasa teaches a multi-mode ophthalmic measuring device that acquires fundus images (Fig. 5A) and OCT measurements in regions of interest (Fig. 5A two-dimensional OCT measurement area RXY).
Miyasa further teaches (claim 11) “The method as claimed in Claim 9, further comprising determining if the second anomaly is captured within the second ophthalmic image by detecting a discontinuity at a boundary of the second ophthalmic image (Fig. 9 “inner limiting membrane has been cut off” Fig. 10 “retinal pigment epithelium has been cut off” both of which are discontinuities at the upper or lower boundaries of the second ophthalmic image, i.e. the OCT scan images. See explanations in e.g. paragraphs [0053]-[0059]. where the result of the cropping means that not all of the desired layers have been fully imaged, and thus that the second anomaly could have been missed or cropped in the second image.), wherein detecting the presence of a discontinuity at the boundary is indicative of cropping of the second anomaly within the second ophthalmic image (the result of the cropping means that not all of the desired layers have been fully imaged, and thus that the second anomaly could have been missed or cropped in the second image.).”
(claim 12) comprising, in response to detecting the presence of the discontinuity at the boundary of the second ophthalmic image (Fig. 3 step S307), increasing a size of the determined region of interest to generate an enlarged region of interest (Fig. 3 step S311 paragraph [0061]: “In step S311, the moving amount setting unit 109 sets a moving amount for automatically adjusting the measuring depth in the depth direction with respect to the retina, based on the retina layer cutoff detection data acquired in step S310.”) and acquiring a further ophthalmic image of the enlarged region of interest (paragraph [0061]: “Next, the tomogram acquisition unit 103 acquires tomogram image data based on the moving amount that was set.”).”
Miyasa further teaches (paragraph [0003]): “The area of retina layers between the inner limiting membrane A and the retinal pigment epithelium boundary B is extremely useful when making a diagnosis with use of OCT tomograms since the anatomical characteristics of illnesses such as glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration, which are the main causes of vision loss, appear in this area. For this reason, when capturing a tomogram, it is critical to perform imaging such that this area is not cut off at the upper edge or lower edge in the depth direction of the tomogram.”
(paragraph [0084]): “the imaging area in the depth direction is automatically adjusted so that the retina layers do not protrude outside the imaging area in the depth direction in the tomograms. This enables preventing an imaging mistake in which a retina layer has been cut off in a tomogram obtained after capturing the three-dimensional data.”
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a step of determining if there are any discontinuities at the upper or lower boundaries of the OCT scan images as taught by Miyasa so that the OCT scan region can be enlarged to include all of the desired layers of the eye as taught by Miyasa in the device of Durbin because Miyasa teaches that it is critical to perform imaging such that all of the retinal layers between inner limiting membrane A and the retinal pigment epithelium boundary B are imaged in order to enable making a diagnosis with the use of OCT tomograms (Miyasa paragraphs [0003] and [0084]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Elsharkawy et al. “The Role of Different Retinal Imaging Modalities in Predicting Progression of Diabetic Retinopathy: A Survey” Sensors 22, 3490 May 4, 2022 https://doi.org/10.3390/s22093490 pertinent to the state of the art.
Saleh et al. “The Role of Medical Image Modalities and AI in the Early Detection, Diagnosis and Grading of Retinal Diseases: A Survey” Bioengineering 9, 366 August 4, 2022 https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering9080366 pertinent to the state of the art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARA E RAKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-4206. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-4PM ET M-F.
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 L 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.
/CARA E RAKOWSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights