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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
Acknowledgment is made of receipt of Information Disclosure Statements (PTO-1449) filed 07/29/2025 and 03/11/2026. An initialed copy is attached to this Office Action.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1-13 of prior U.S. Patent No. 12,226,155. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
Application: 19/018,234
Reference: 12,226,155
1. A method comprising: receiving an indication to initiate a first optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanning of an eye; initiating, based on the received indication, the first OCT scanning of the eye; generating, based on the first OCT scanning, a first OCT image of the eye; detecting, based on the first OCT image, a retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) of the eye and a fovea in the eye; and based on the detecting, causing a first enhanced OCT image to be displayed to a user, the first enhanced OCT image displaying: a first virtual marker segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE, wherein the first virtual marker is a curvilinear line, and a second virtual marker, wherein the second virtual marker visually identifies a location of the detected fovea, and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line through the location of the detected fovea.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: detecting, based on the first OCT image, an abnormal macular anatomic configuration in the eye; and in response to detecting the abnormal macular anatomic configuration, transmitting an alert to the user advising against using a contrast decreasing multi-focal intraocular optical lens (IOL).
1. A method comprising: receiving an indication to initiate a first optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanning of an eye; initiating, based on the received indication, the first OCT scanning of the eye; generating, based on the first OCT scanning, a first OCT image of the eye; detecting, based on the first OCT image, a retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) of the eye and a fovea in the eye; based on the detecting, causing a first enhanced OCT image to be displayed to a user, the first enhanced OCT image displaying: a first virtual marker segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE, wherein the first virtual marker is a curvilinear line, and a second virtual marker, wherein the second virtual marker visually identifies a location of the detected fovea, and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line through the location of the detected fovea; detecting, based on the first OCT image, an abnormal macular anatomic configuration in the eye; and in response to detecting the abnormal macular anatomic configuration, transmitting an alert to the user advising against using a contrast decreasing multifocal intraocular optical lens (IOL).
Regarding claims 1 and 2, there is no difference between claims 1 and 2 of the instant application and claim 1 of the reference patent.
3. The method of claim 1, further comprising: initiating, in response to the completion of the first OCT scanning, a second OCT scanning of the eye; generating, based on the second OCT scanning, a second OCT image of the eye; detecting, based on the second OCT image, the RPE of the eye and the fovea in the eye; displaying, based on the detecting, on a second enhanced OCT image: a third virtual marker segmenting at least a same portion of the detected RPE as the first virtual marker, and a fourth virtual marker across at least a same portion of the location of the detected fovea as the first virtual marker; causing the second enhanced OCT image to be displayed to the user.
4. The method of claim 3, further comprising: transmitting an alert to the user, wherein the alert requests the user to confirm whether the fovea is accurately detected at least in one of the first enhanced OCT image or the second OCT enhanced image.
5. The method of claim 3, wherein the second OCT scanning of the eye is a retinal scanning of the eye and wherein the second OCT image of the eye is a retinal image of the eye.
6. The method of claim 3, wherein the third virtual marker is a curvilinear line and wherein a curvature of the curvilinear line matches a posterior curvature of the eye.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual marker and the second virtual marker intersect perpendicularly.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the second virtual marker is extended through an anterior portion of a retina of the eye on the first enhanced OCT image.
9. The method of claim 1, wherein the first OCT image is an OCT B-scan image and a full biometry of the eye.
2. The method of claim 1, further comprising: initiating, in response to the completion of the first OCT scanning, a second OCT scanning of the eye; generating, based on the second OCT scanning, a second OCT image of the eye; detecting, based on the second OCT image, the RPE of the eye and the fovea in the eye; displaying, based on the detecting, on a second enhanced OCT image: a third virtual marker segmenting at least a same portion of the detected RPE as the first virtual marker, and a fourth virtual marker across at least a same portion of the location of the detected fovea as the first virtual marker; causing the second enhanced OCT image to be displayed to the user.
3. The method of claim 2, further comprising: transmitting an alert to the user, wherein the alert requests the user to confirm whether the fovea is accurately detected at least in one of the first enhanced OCT image or the second OCT enhanced image.
4. The method of claim 2, wherein the second OCT scanning of the eye is a retinal scanning of the eye and wherein the second OCT image of the eye is a retinal image of the eye.
5. The method of claim 2, wherein the third virtual marker is a curvilinear line and wherein a curvature of the curvilinear line matches a posterior curvature of the eye.
6. The method of claim 1, wherein the first virtual marker and the second virtual marker intersect perpendicularly.
7. The method of claim 1, wherein the second virtual marker is extended through an anterior portion of a retina of the eye on the first enhanced OCT image.
8. The method of claim 1, wherein the first OCT image is an OCT B-scan image and a full biometry of the eye.
Regarding claims 3-9, there is no difference between claims 3-9 of the instant application and claims 2-8 of the reference patent.
10. An imaging system, comprising: a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the imaging system to: receive an indication to initiate a first optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanning of an eye; initiate, based on the received indication, the first OCT scanning of the eye; generate, based on the first OCT scanning, a first OCT image of the eye; detect, based on the first OCT image, a retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) of the eye and a fovea in the eye; and based on the detecting, cause a first enhanced OCT image to be displayed to a user, the first enhanced OCT image displaying: a first virtual marker segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE, wherein the first virtual marker is a curvilinear line, and a second virtual marker, wherein the second virtual marker visually identifies a location of the detected fovea, and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line.
11. The imaging system of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the imaging system to: detect, based on the first OCT image, an abnormal anatomic configuration in the eye; and in response to detecting the abnormal anatomic configuration, transmit an alert to the user advising against using a contrast decreasing multi-focal intraocular optical lens (IOL).
9. An imaging system, comprising: a memory comprising computer-executable instructions; a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the imaging system to: receive an indication to initiate a first optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanning of an eye; initiate, based on the received indication, the first OCT scanning of the eye; generate, based on the first OCT scanning, a first OCT image of the eye; detect, based on the first OCT image, a retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) of the eye and a fovea in the eye; based on the detecting, cause a first enhanced OCT image to be displayed to a user, the first enhanced OCT image displaying: a first virtual marker segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE, wherein the first virtual marker is a curvilinear line, and a second virtual marker, wherein the second virtual marker visually identifies a location of the detected fovea, and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line; detect, based on the first OCT image, an abnormal macular anatomic configuration in the eye; and in response to detecting the abnormal macular anatomic configuration, transmit an alert to the user advising against using a contrast decreasing multifocal intraocular optical lens (IOL).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, there is no difference between claims 10 and 11 of the instant application and claim 9 of the reference patent.
12. The imaging system of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the imaging system to: initiate, in response to the completion of the first OCT scanning, a second OCT scanning of the eye; generate, based on the second OCT scanning, a second OCT image of the eye; detect, based on the second OCT image, the RPE of the eye and the fovea in the eye; display, based on the detecting, on a second enhanced OCT image: a third virtual marker segmenting at least a same portion of the detected RPE as the first virtual marker, and a fourth virtual marker across at least a same portion of the location of the detected fovea as the first virtual marker; and cause the second enhanced OCT image to be displayed to the user.
13. The imaging system of claim 12, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the imaging system to: transmit an alert to the user, wherein the alert requests the user to confirm whether the fovea is accurately detected at least in one of the first enhanced OCT image or the second OCT enhanced image.
14. The imaging system of claim 12, wherein the second OCT scanning of the eye is a retinal scanning of the eye and wherein the second OCT image of the eye is a retinal image of the eye.
15. The imaging system of claim 12, wherein the third virtual marker is a curvilinear line and wherein a curvature of the curvilinear line matches a posterior curvature of the eye.
10. The imaging system of claim 9, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the imaging system to: initiate, in response to the completion of the first OCT scanning, a second OCT scanning of the eye; generate, based on the second OCT scanning, a second OCT image of the eye; detect, based on the second OCT image, the RPE of the eye and the fovea in the eye; display, based on the detecting, on a second enhanced OCT image: a third virtual marker segmenting at least a same portion of the detected RPE as the first virtual marker, and a fourth virtual marker across at least a same portion of the location of the detected fovea as the first virtual marker; and cause the second enhanced OCT image to be displayed to the user.
11. The imaging system of claim 10, wherein the processor is further configured to cause the imaging system to: transmit an alert to the user, wherein the alert requests the user to confirm whether the fovea is accurately detected at least in one of the first enhanced OCT image or the second OCT enhanced image.
12. The imaging system of claim 10, wherein the second OCT scanning of the eye is a retinal scanning of the eye and wherein the second OCT image of the eye is a retinal image of the eye.
13. The imaging system of claim 10, wherein the third virtual marker is a curvilinear line and wherein a curvature of the curvilinear line matches a posterior curvature of the eye.
Regarding claims 11-15, there is no difference between claims 11-15 of the instant application and claims 10-13 of the reference patent.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the preamble recites “a method”. It is recommended that the preamble refers to the method as “a method for displaying imaging markers on ophthalmic images”, “a method for ophthalmic imaging” or any other similar language presented in the specification to provide further context. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6 and 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volkwardt et al. (USPG Pub No. 2015/0250384), hereinafter “Volkwardt”, in view of Aoki1 (JP 2014-113207 A).
Regarding claim 1, Volkwardt discloses a method (Paragraph 36, Line 1) comprising: receiving an indication to initiate a first optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanning of an eye (Paragraph 36, Lines 3-6, Paragraph 37, Line 1); initiating, based on the received indication, the first OCT scanning of the eye (Paragraph 36, Lines 3-6, Paragraph 37, Line 1); generating, based on the first OCT scanning, a first OCT image of the eye (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph 38); detecting, based on the first OCT image, a retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) of the eye and a fovea in the eye (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraph 44, Lines 3-8, Paragraph 45); and based on the detecting, causing a first enhanced OCT image to be displayed to a user (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 38, 86), the first enhanced OCT image displaying (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 38, 86). Fig. 3 along with Paragraph 86 of Volkwardt illustrate and teach that an operator can provide manual markings on the captured OCT images, however Volkwardt does not specify a first virtual marker segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE, wherein the first virtual marker is a curvilinear line, and a second virtual marker, wherein the second virtual marker visually identifies a location of the detected fovea, and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line through the location of the detected fovea. In the same field of endeavor, Aoki discloses a first virtual marker (601) segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE (C) (see Figs. 6(a), 6(b), Paragraph 42), wherein the first virtual marker (601) is a curvilinear line (see Figs. 6(a), 6(b), Paragraph 42), and a second virtual marker (702), wherein the second virtual marker (702) visually identifies a location of the detected fovea (see Figs. 7(a), 7(b), Paragraphs 44-46), and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line through the location of the detected fovea (see Figs. 7(a), 7(b), Paragraphs 44-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Volkwardt with a first virtual marker segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE, wherein the first virtual marker is a curvilinear line, and a second virtual marker, wherein the second virtual marker visually identifies a location of the detected fovea, and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line through the location of the detected fovea of Aoki for the purpose of providing an identification or recognition method for the examiner (Paragraph 42, Lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 2, Volkwardt further discloses further comprising: detecting, based on the first OCT image, an abnormal macular anatomic configuration in the eye (Paragraph 85 – “pathological changes”); and in response to detecting the abnormal macular anatomic configuration, transmitting an alert (“warning message is displayed”) to the user advising against using a contrast decreasing multi-focal intraocular optical lens (IOL) (Paragraph 4, Paragraph 85 – “possible options which are available are for example simultaneously presented or predetermined for the user”). Paragraphs 4, 7 and 8 teach the importance of accurate measurements obtained from OCT imaging in order to prevent errors in selecting an IOL that could cause defective vision for a specific patient.
Regarding claim 3, Volkwardt discloses further comprising: initiating, in response to the completion of the first OCT scanning, a second OCT scanning of the eye (Paragraphs 41, 42, 54 – aggregating implies multiple measurements, also A-scan and B-scan are separate scanning steps); generating, based on the second OCT scanning, a second OCT image of the eye (Paragraphs 41, 42, 54); detecting, based on the second OCT image, the RPE of the eye and the fovea in the eye (Paragraph 44, Lines 3-8, Paragraph 45); displaying, based on the detecting, on a second enhanced OCT image (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 38, 86): causing the second enhanced OCT image to be displayed to the user (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 38, 86). Fig. 3 along with Paragraph 86 of Volkwardt illustrate and teach that an operator can provide manual markings on the captured OCT images. In addition, Volkwardt and Aoki teach the method set forth above for claim 1, Aoki further discloses a third virtual marker (601, 702) segmenting at least a same portion of the detected RPE as the first virtual marker, and a fourth virtual marker (702, 601) across at least a same portion of the location of the detected fovea as the first virtual marker (see Figs. 6(a)-7(b), 10(a)-11, Paragraphs 42, 44-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Volkwardt with the teachings of Aoki for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1. Furthermore, the repetition of steps is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is absent of a new and unexpected result.
Regarding claim 4, Volkwardt further discloses further comprising: transmitting an alert to the user, wherein the alert requests the user to confirm whether the fovea is accurately detected at least in one of the first enhanced OCT image or the second OCT enhanced image (Paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 5, Volkwardt further discloses wherein the second OCT scanning of the eye is a retinal scanning of the eye and wherein the second OCT image of the eye is a retinal image of the eye (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraphs 57-60).
Regarding claim 6, Volkwardt and Aoki teach the method set forth above for claim 3, Aoki further discloses wherein the third virtual marker is a curvilinear line and wherein a curvature of the curvilinear line matches a posterior curvature of the eye (see Figs. 6(a)-7(b), Paragraphs 42, 44-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the method of Volkwardt with the teachings of Aoki for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Volkwardt further discloses wherein the first OCT image is an OCT B-scan image and a full biometry of the eye (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph 36).
Regarding claim 10, Volkwardt discloses an imaging system (Paragraph 36, lines 1-6), comprising: a memory comprising computer-executable instructions (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 36, 55 – inherent in the automated imaging and evaluation process); a processor configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the imaging system to (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 36, 55 – inherent in the automated imaging and evaluation process): receive an indication to initiate a first optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanning of an eye (Paragraph 36, Lines 3-6, Paragraph 37, Line 1); initiate, based on the received indication, the first OCT scanning of the eye (Paragraph 36, Lines 3-6, Paragraph 37, Line 1); generate, based on the first OCT scanning, a first OCT image of the eye (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraph 38); detect, based on the first OCT image, a retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) of the eye and a fovea in the eye (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraph 44, Lines 3-8, Paragraph 45); and based on the detecting, cause a first enhanced OCT image to be displayed to a user (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 38, 86), the first enhanced OCT image displaying (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 38, 86). Fig. 3 along with Paragraph 86 of Volkwardt illustrate and teach that an operator can provide manual markings on the captured OCT images, however Volkwardt does not specify a first virtual marker segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE, wherein the first virtual marker is a curvilinear line, and a second virtual marker, wherein the second virtual marker visually identifies a location of the detected fovea, and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line. In the same field of endeavor, Aoki discloses a first virtual marker (601) segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE (C) (see Figs. 6(a), 6(b), Paragraph 42), wherein the first virtual marker (601) is a curvilinear line (see Figs. 6(a), 6(b), Paragraph 42), and a second virtual marker (702), wherein the second virtual marker (702) visually identifies a location of the detected fovea (see Figs. 7(a), 7(b), Paragraphs 44-46), and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line (see Figs. 7(a), 7(b), Paragraphs 44-46). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the imaging system of Volkwardt with a first virtual marker segmenting at least a portion of the detected RPE, wherein the first virtual marker is a curvilinear line, and a second virtual marker, wherein the second virtual marker visually identifies a location of the detected fovea, and wherein the second virtual marker is a radial line of Aoki for the purpose of providing an identification or recognition method for the examiner (Paragraph 42, Lines 4-6).
Regarding claim 11, Volkwardt further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to cause the imaging system to: detect, based on the first OCT image, an abnormal anatomic configuration in the eye (Paragraph 85 – “pathological changes”); and in response to detecting the abnormal anatomic configuration, transmit an alert (“warning message is displayed”) to the user advising against using a contrast decreasing multi-focal intraocular optical lens (IOL) (Paragraph 4, Paragraph 85 – “possible options which are available are for example simultaneously presented or predetermined for the user”). Paragraphs 4, 7 and 8 teach the importance of accurate measurements obtained from OCT imaging in order to prevent errors in selecting an IOL that could cause defective vision for a specific patient.
Regarding claim 12, Volkwardt discloses wherein the processor is further configured to cause the imaging system to: initiate, in response to the completion of the first OCT scanning, a second OCT scanning of the eye (Paragraphs 41, 42, 54 – aggregating implies multiple measurements, also A-scan and B-scan are separate scanning steps); generate, based on the second OCT scanning, a second OCT image of the eye (Paragraphs 41, 42, 54); detect, based on the second OCT image, the RPE of the eye and the fovea in the eye (Paragraph 44, Lines 3-8, Paragraph 45); display, based on the detecting, on a second enhanced OCT image (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 38, 86) and cause the second enhanced OCT image to be displayed to the user (see Figs. 2, 3, Paragraphs 38, 86). Fig. 3 along with Paragraph 86 of Volkwardt illustrate and teach that an operator can provide manual markings on the captured OCT images. In addition, Volkwardt and Aoki teach the method set forth above for claim 10, Aoki further discloses a third virtual marker (601, 702) segmenting at least a same portion of the detected RPE as the first virtual marker, and a fourth virtual marker (702, 601) across at least a same portion of the location of the detected fovea as the first virtual marker (see Figs. 6(a)-7(b), 10(a)-11, (Paragraphs 42, 44-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the imaging system of Volkwardt with the teachings of Aoki for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 10. Furthermore, the repetition of steps is within the level of ordinary skill in the art and is absent of a new and unexpected result.
Regarding claim 13, Volkwardt further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to cause the imaging system to: transmit an alert to the user, wherein the alert requests the user to confirm whether the fovea is accurately detected at least in one of the first enhanced OCT image or the second OCT enhanced image (Paragraph 60).
Regarding claim 14, Volkwardt further discloses wherein the second OCT scanning of the eye is a retinal scanning of the eye and wherein the second OCT image of the eye is a retinal image of the eye (see Figs. 1-3, Paragraphs 57-60).
Regarding claim 15, Volkwardt and Aoki teach the imaging system set forth above for claim 12, Aoki further discloses wherein the third virtual marker is a curvilinear line and wherein a curvature of the curvilinear line matches a posterior curvature of the eye (see Figs. 6(a)-7(b), Paragraphs 42, 44-46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to provide the imaging system of Volkwardt with the teachings of Aoki for at least the same reasons as those set forth above with respect to claim 10.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Volkwardt (USPG Pub No. 2015/0250384) in view of Aoki (JP 2014-113207 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang (USPG Pub No. 2016/0284103).
Regarding claim 7, Volkwardt and Aoki disclose the claimed invention but do not specify wherein the first virtual marker and the second virtual marker intersect perpendicularly. Although this feature is well known in the art, Huang is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses wherein the first virtual marker and the second virtual marker intersect perpendicularly (see Figs. 3A-6A, Paragraphs 57, 80). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Volkwardt and Aoki with wherein the first virtual marker and the second virtual marker intersect perpendicularly of Huang for the purpose of providing a method for determining the area and/or volume of a region of interest from imaging data (Paragraph 2).
Regarding claim 8, Volkwardt and Aoki disclose the claimed invention but do not specify wherein the second virtual marker is extended through an anterior portion of a retina of the eye on the first enhanced OCT image. Although this feature is well known in the art, Huang is presented to provide further evidence of this knowledge. In the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses wherein the second virtual marker is extended through an anterior portion of a retina of the eye on the first enhanced OCT image (see Figs. 3A-6A, Paragraphs 57, 80). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the method of Volkwardt and Aoki with wherein the second virtual marker is extended through an anterior portion of a retina of the eye on the first enhanced OCT image of Huang for the purpose of providing a method for determining the area and/or volume of a region of interest from imaging data (Paragraph 2).
Prior Art Citations
Yamakawa et al. (USPG Pub No. 2014/0112562) is being cited herein to show a method and imaging system relevant to the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHIDERE S SAHLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3329. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:00 AM to 5:00 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, 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.
/MAHIDERE S SAHLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 9/28/2026
1 The English translation of Aoki, as provided by Applicant, is utilized herein.
Prosecution Insights