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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 3/4/2025 has been considered.
DETAILED ACTION
The instant application having Application No. 18/914,349 filed on 10/14/2024 is presented for examination by the Examiner.
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.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “40” has been used to designate both the contact lens in Fig. 2D and the reflection from the contact lens in Fig. 2E. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1, 5-6, 8-11, 15-16, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Czajka et al. (US 2021/0319239, hereinafter, “Czajka”).
Regarding claim 1, Czajka discloses an ophthalmic system 100 for examining an eye of a patient (Fig. 3A, [0051]), comprising:
a detector 110 (Fig. 3A, [0051]) configured to:
detect a plurality of waves 132, 1136, 140 reflected from the eye of the patient, the waves conveying information about the eye (Fig. 3A, [0051]); and
generate a detector signal that communicates the information about the eye (S819, S821 in Fig. 8, [0048], [0072]); and
a computer ([0076]) configured to perform a contact lens check by:
receiving the information about the eye via the detector signal ([0061]);
determining from the information about the eye a characteristic indicating a potential presence of a contact lens ([0041], [0048]);
generating a notification warning of the potential presence of a contact lens (S819 in Fig. 8, [0075]); and
instructing an output device to provide the notification warning of the potential presence of a contact lens ([0083]).
Regarding claim 5, Czajka discloses the ophthalmic system of claim 1, wherein:
the detector comprises a camera 110 ([0051]);
the information about the eye describes one or more Purkinje images of the eye (see the multiple reflections due to the presence of the contact lens 130, Fig. 3A, 4A, [0053]); and
the computer is configured to determine the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens by:
detecting a Purkinje image resulting from the contact lens ([0053]).
Regarding claim 6, Czajka discloses the ophthalmic system of claim 1, wherein:
the information about the eye describes a plurality of surfaces of the eye (Fig. 3A); and
the computer is configured to determine the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens by:
detecting a surface 130 anterior to the cornea 124, the surface representing the contact lens (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 8, Czajka discloses the ophthalmic system of claim 1, the computer configured to perform the contact lens check in response to a request to perform the contact lens check ([0083]. An input mechanism is used to enter a request to initiate the check).
Regarding claim 9, Czajka discloses the ophthalmic system of claim 1, wherein:
the output device comprises a display device ([0083]); and
the notification comprises a visual indicator warning of the potential presence of a contact lens ([0083], a display provides a visual indicator).
Regarding claim 10, Czajka discloses the ophthalmic system of claim 1, wherein:
the output device comprises a speaker ([0083]); and
the notification comprises an auditory indicator warning of the potential presence of a contact lens ([0083], a speaker provides an auditory indicator warning).
Regarding claim 11, Czajka discloses a method for examining an eye of a patient, comprising:
detecting, by a detector 110 (Fig. 3A, [0051]), a plurality of waves 132, 1136, 140 reflected from the eye of the patient, the waves conveying information about the eye (Fig. 3A, [0051]);
generating, by the detector 110, a detector signal that communicates the information about the eye (S819, S821 in Fig. 8, [0048], [0072]); and
performing, by a computer ([0076]), a contact lens check by:
receiving the information about the eye via the detector signal ([0061]);
determining from the information about the eye a characteristic indicating a potential presence of a contact lens ([0041], [0048]);
generating a notification warning of the potential presence of a contact lens (S819 in Fig. 8, [0075]); and
instructing an output device to provide the notification warning of the potential presence of a contact lens ([0083]).
Regarding claim 15, Czajka discloses the method of claim 11, wherein:
the detector comprises a camera 110 ([0051]);
the information about the eye describes one or more Purkinje images of the eye (see the multiple reflections due to the presence of the contact lens 130, Fig. 3A, 4A, [0053]); and
determining the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens comprises detecting a Purkinje image resulting from the contact lens ([0053]).
Regarding claim 16, Czajka discloses the method of claim 11, wherein:
the information about the eye describes a plurality of surfaces of the eye (Fig. 3A); and
determining the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens comprises
detecting a surface 130 anterior to the cornea 124, the surface representing the contact lens (Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 18, Czajka discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising performing the contact lens check in response to a request to perform the contact lens
check ([0083]. An input mechanism is used to enter a request to initiate the check).
Regarding claim 19, Czajka discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
Providing, by the output device comprising a display device ([0083]), a visual indicator as the notification warning of the potential presence of a contact lens ([0083], a display provides a visual indicator).
Regarding claim 20, Czajka discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising:
Providing, by the output device comprising a speaker ([0083]), an auditory indicator as the notification warning of the potential presence of a contact lens ([0083], a speaker provides an auditory indicator warning).
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 7, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czajka.
Regarding claim 7, Czajka discloses the ophthalmic system of claim 1.
Czajka does not disclose the computer configured to perform the contact lens check automatically for each patient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Czajka, so that the contact lens check is performed automatically, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which accomplishes the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). An automatic start of the contact lens check provides for a more accurate medical check of the patient in case the medical assistant forgets.
Regarding claim 17, Czajka discloses the method of claim 11.
Czajka does not disclose performing the contact lens check automatically for each patient.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Czajka, so that the contact lens check is performed automatically, since it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which accomplishes the same result involves only routine skill in the art. In re Venner 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958). An automatic start of the contact lens check provides for a more accurate medical check of the patient in case the medical assistant forgets.
Claims 2, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czajka in view
of Al-Qaisi (US 2022/0167843, hereinafter, “Al-Qaisi”).
Regarding claim 2, Czajka discloses the ophthalmic system of claim 1, wherein:
the information about the eye describes a segmentation of an anterior portion of the eye ([0062]), the anterior portion comprising a cornea (Fig. 3A); and
the computer is configured to determine the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens by:
detecting a segment anterior to the cornea, the segment representing the contact lens (Fig. 6).
Czajka does not disclose the detector comprises an ocular biometer.
Al-Qaisi discloses an optical imaging system for imaging the eye (Abstract). Al-Qaisi discloses that ocular biometers focusing light onto the anterior chamber of the eye are commonly used for optical imaging of the eye ([0087]).
Both Czajka and Al-Qaisi disclose ophthalmic examination optical systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Czajka so that an ocular biometer is used to illuminate the eye, as taught by Al-Qaisi, for a better illumination of the eye by focusing within the anterior portion of the eye ([0087] in Al-Qaisi).
Regarding claim 12, Czajka discloses the method of claim 11, wherein:
the information about the eye describes a segmentation of an anterior portion of the eye ([0062]), the anterior portion comprising a cornea (Fig. 3A); and
determining the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens comprises detecting a segment anterior to the cornea, the segment representing the contact lens (Fig. 6).
Czajka does not disclose the detector comprises an ocular biometer.
Al-Qaisi discloses an optical imaging system for imaging the eye (Abstract). Al-Qaisi discloses that ocular biometers focusing light onto the anterior chamber of the eye are commonly used for optical imaging of the eye ([0087]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Czajka so that an ocular biometer is used to illuminate the eye, as taught by Al-Qaisi, for a better illumination of the eye by focusing within the anterior portion of the eye ([0087] in Al-Qaisi).
Claims 4, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czajka in view of Hogan (US 2019/0150799, hereinafter, “Hogan”).
Regarding claim 4, Czajka discloses the ophthalmic system of claim 1.
Czajka does not disclose the detector comprises an optical coherence tomography (OCT) device;
the information about the eye describes a plurality of surfaces of the eye; and
the computer is configured to determine the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens by:
detecting a surface anterior to the cornea, the surface representing the contact lens.
Hogan discloses an OCT device for identity identification (Abstract, Fig. 9). In one embodiment, an OCT device illuminates the cornea to detect the presence of a contact lens (which is a surface anterior of the cornea), (Fig. 9, [0020]).
Both Czajka and Hogan disclose ophthalmic examination optical systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Czajka so that an OCT device is used to illuminate the eye, as taught by Hogan, for acquiring three dimensional and sub - surface information of the eye ([0018] in Hogan).
In the above modified Czajka/Hogan system, a three dimensional image, i.e., multiple surfaces of the eye, are captured ([0018] in Hogan) and a surface representing the contact lens 130 anterior to the cornea 124 is detected (Fig. 3A in Czajka).
Regarding claim 14, Czajka discloses the method of claim 11.
Czajka does not disclose the detector comprises an optical coherence tomography (OCT) device;
the information about the eye describes a plurality of surfaces of the eye; and
determining the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens comprises detecting a surface anterior to the cornea, the surface representing the contact lens.
Hogan discloses an OCT device for identity identification (Abstract, Fig. 9). In one embodiment, an OCT device illuminates the cornea to detect the presence of a contact lens (which is a surface anterior of the cornea), (Fig. 9, [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Czajka so that an OCT device is used to illuminate the eye, as taught by Hogan, for acquiring three dimensional and sub - surface information of the eye ([0018] in Hogan).
In the above modified Czajka/Hogan method, a three dimensional image, i.e., multiple surfaces of the eye, are captured ([0018] in Hogan) and a surface representing the contact lens 130 anterior to the cornea 124 is detected (Fig. 3A in Czajka).
Claims 3, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Czajka in view
of Millar et al. (US 2020/0383564, hereinafter, “Millar”).
Regarding claim 3, Czajka discloses the ophthalmic system of claim 1.
Czajka does not disclose the detector comprises a keratometer;
the information about the eye describes an axial length of the eye; and
the computer is configured to determine the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens by:
detecting an increase in the axial length relative to an axial length measurement of the eye without a contact lens.
Millar discloses a method for diagnosing an ocular condition of an eye (Abstract). In discussing choosing contact lenses for a subject, Millar discloses that a keratometer is typically used to measure the curvature of the cornea of the eye ([0032]).
Both Czajka and Millar disclose ophthalmic examination optical systems.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Czajka so that a keratometer device is used to illuminate the eye, as taught by Millar, for acquiring a measurement of the curvature of the eye.
In the above modified Czajka/Millar system, the curvature of the cornea is detected, that is, the axial length of the eye is detected, which is related to the increase of the axial length because of the presence of the contact lens.
Regarding claim 13, Czajka discloses the method of claim 11.
Czajka does not disclose the detector comprises a keratometer;
the information about the eye describes an axial length of the eye; and
determining the characteristic indicating the presence of a contact lens comprises detecting an increase in the axial length relative to an axial length measurement of the eye without a contact lens.
Millar discloses a method for diagnosing an ocular condition of an eye (Abstract). In discussing choosing contact lenses for a subject, Millar discloses that a keratometer is typically used to measure the curvature of the cornea of the eye ([0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the present application to modify Czajka so that a keratometer device is used to illuminate the eye, as taught by Millar, for acquiring a measurement of the curvature of the eye.
In the above modified Czajka/Millar method, the curvature of the cornea is detected, that is, the axial length of the eye is detected, which is related to the increase of the axial length because of the presence of the contact lens.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEONIDAS BOUTSIKARIS whose telephone number is (703)756-4529. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fr. 9.00-5.00.
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, 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 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.
/L.B./
Patent Examiner, AU 2872
/STEPHONE B ALLEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights