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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claims 2-13, “[[An]]The optical attachment according to”.
Claim 15-17, “[[A]]The method according to claim”.
Claim 4: line 3, “the [[he]] first output”.
Claim 6 & Claim 13: There is a missing comma after preamble. Add a comma after the preamble.
Claim 11: “attaching or detaching the eye probe comprised in [[to]] the tonometer”.
Claim 13: “to control size of a pupil of an eye of a user”.
Claim 14:
“A method of determining a distance between a surface of [[the]]an eye and a tonometer, the method comprising using [[an]]the optical attachment according to claim 1, to provide [[a]]the first illuminated image of [[a]]the first output facet of the optical attachment on the surface of the eye.”
Claim 15:
“wherein the method further comprising moving the tonometer towards the surface of the eye and observing a first radius of the first illuminated image in respect to a radius pupil of the eye.”
Claim 16:
“wherein the tonometer is at [[right]] a distance when the first radius is 1.0 up to 1.2 times larger in than the radius of the pupil of the eye.”
Claim 17:
“wherein when the tonometer is at the [[right]] distance, performing a measurement of an property of the eye with the tonometer.”
Appropriate correction is needed.
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.
Claims 4-8, 10-12, 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 4:
“the surface of the eye radius”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the surface of the eye. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 5:
“the predefined distance” & “the eye”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a predefined distance and an eye. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 6:
“the predetermined distance” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). There is inconsistent use of predetermined vs predefine distance throughout the claims. Its unclear if there is a difference between the two or not. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the predefined distance for clarity and consistent claim language usage. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 7:
“the second radius” & “the predetermined distance” & “the eye surface”. For each of these recitations there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a second radius, a predefined distance, and a surface of an eye. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 8:
“the predefined distance”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a predefined distance. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 10:
“the tonometer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a tonometer. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 12:
“the eye probe” & “the eye”. For each of these recitations there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an eye probe and a eye. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Claim 14:
“the eye”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an eye. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
Moreover, Claim 14, is a “use claim” that does not positively set forth any step for determining a distance between a surface of the eye and a tonometer, and therefore is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15:
“the surface of the eye”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a surface of the eye. Accordingly, proper antecedent basis is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 13 recites, “to control size of pupil of an eye of user.” – which positively encompasses a human organism.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 9 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gersten et al (US4863260A).
Claim 1: Gersten discloses: An optical attachment for emitting light towards a target, the optical attachment comprising: (¶Abstract; Col 3 l.6-25; Col 4 ll.6-25)
a hollow body (cone 10, extension tube 18 and interior plastic disc 18F that form a cylindrical/conical assembly defining a central corridor 11.) of light guiding material (Col 2 l.61-67; Col 4 l.6-12, 15-30: plastic body material is a light transmitting/guiding, allowing the light lamps 14 to pass through and be guided across the body. / the opaque coating lines 9.), the hollow body comprising a through opening (Col 3 l.65-68; Col 4 l.11-15, 36-44: central corridor 11 extends completely though the center of the hollow body along the optical axis.), an outer surface (The hollow body (including cylinder 18, disc 18F, and cone 10) possess an exterior peripheral surface surrounding the central corridor 11, FIG. 6-1), an inner surface opposite to the outer surface (The interior wall surrounding the central passage way 11 defines an inner surface opposite the outer surface; FIG. 6-1), a first output facet (see annotated FIG. 6-1 below), and a posterior facet opposite (The posterior region extending into or borders light box housing 15 to receive illumination from lamps 14; see annotated FIG. 6-1 below) to the first output facet (see annotated FIG. 6-1 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
460
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the posterior facet arranged to receive light from one or more light sources (14)and to guide the received light via the hollow body towards the first output facet; (Col 4 l.6-25, 57-61: light box 15 contains lamps 14 surrounding the posterior portion of plastic disc 18F and cylinder 18. Light from the lamps 14 is received at this portion and guided though the light-transmitting material of the hollow body toward the output face and ring apertures 13 cut into the opaque lining) and
wherein the first output facet when in use is configured to emit the light towards the target forming a first illuminated image of the first output facet on the target (Col 2 l. 61-67; Col 4 l.15-25, 36-44, 57-61; Col 5 l.11-20: When lamps 14 are powered, light emitted from the output ring apertures 13 on the face of the hollow body projects towards target cornea or reference sphere 6. This emitted light reflects off the target surface to for a corresponding illuminated ring image (mire 13’) on the target.).
Claim 2: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Gersten discloses: wherein the hollow body is shaped as a conical frustum (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation a conical frustum is a truncated cone structure bounded by two cylinder bases of different diameters connected by a tapered or conical outer/inner surface; see annotated FIG. 6-1 below) of a cylinder, wherein the first output facet forms a first base (the left-facing surface of the interior plastic 18F) of the conical frustum, the posterior facet forms a second base (the rear surface/portion of 18F) the conical frustum and the first base of the conical frustum has a first radius (see annotated FIG. 6-1 below; the left facing surface of the interior plastic disc 18 defines a first radius.).
PNG
media_image2.png
486
791
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 3: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Gersten discloses: wherein the inner surface includes a stepped configuration defining a first portion, a second portion, and a second output facet (18F) between the first portion and the second portion, the second output facet being parallel to the first output facet, and (see annotated FIG. 6-1 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
544
865
media_image3.png
Greyscale
wherein the posterior facet is further arranged to guide the received light via the hollow body towards the second output facet, and (Col. 4 lines 6-12; 18F is an interior plastic disc with an internally tapering surface that projects into the central corridor 11. Col 4 l.6-25, 57-61; The posterior facet forms the rear receiving end of this hollow structure located within or adjacent to the light box 15 housing containing the lamps 14. Col 4 l.15-35; the light is received at the posterior facet and guided through via 18F towards the output facet.)
wherein the second output facet when in use is configured to emit the light towards the target forming a second illuminated image of the second output facet on the target. (Col 4 l20-28; Col 4 l.57-61: During operating lamps 14 inside light box 15 are energized to back-light the assembly. The light passes though plastic disc 18F where opaque coating 9 has been partially removed from its tapered portion, thereby emitting light towards the target cornea or calibration sphere 6. Col 4 l.20-28; Col 5 l.11-14: Coating 9 may be removed from tapered portion 18F to permit lamp light to illuminate a portion of its tapered surface and “thereby provide an additional mire (not shown) to be reflected upon sphere 6”. In addition, coating on the left face of disc 18F may be selectively removed to “reveal one or more additional mires 13”. These mires project onto target sphere 6 to form reflected virtual ring images 13.)
Claim 9: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 3, Gersten discloses: wherein the first radius is between 3 millimetres to 10 millimetres. (Col 4 l.48-52: The point of exact focus, point A, is located a distance a, in the illustrative embodiment, 3.2 mm from the end of cone 10.)
Claim 13: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Gersten discloses: where in illumination power of the one or more light sources is controlled (Col 4 l.15-25, 53-62)
Regarding the limitations of claim 13 - “to control size of pupil of an eye of user" directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the invention Gersten is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant, see MPEP 2114.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries 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 4-6, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gersten et al (US4863260A), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Herranen et al (US 20160174838 A1).
Claim 4: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Gersten discloses: wherein when the target is a surface of an eye (Col 1 l.10-15) and when the target is at a predefined distance (D) from the first output facet (Col 1 l.15-20; Col 4 l.45-52; Col 15 l.1-3), the first illuminated image, having a second radius, is formed at the surface of the eye radius (Col 2 l.60-67; Col 4 l.15-25; Col 5 l.10-25, 40-55; Col 7 l.20-30),
Gersten fails to disclose:
wherein the second radius is 1.0 times up to 1.2 times radius of a pupil of the eye.
However, Herranen in the field of optometric instruments discloses: wherein the radius is 1.0 times up to 1.2 times radius of a pupil of the eye (¶0028: The light channels are preferably arranged so that the distance between the points are determined on the basis of the size of the pupil, preferably corresponding to the size of the pupil i.e. ca 5 mm. If the mutual distance of the points is too long, the invention does not work in the intended way, since then the light would not hit the retina via the cornea of the eye of the patient as it should.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the second radius of Gersten to incorporate the teachings of Herranen. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as ensuring light reaches the retina and preventing alignment failure as suggested by Herranen, ¶0028.
Claim 5: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 3, Gersten discloses: wherein when the target is at the predefined distance (D) from the first output facet (Col 4 l.15-20; Col 4 l.45-52. Claim 7), the second illuminated image, having a third radius, is formed at the eye, (Col 4 l.20-28; Col 5 l.11-14, 40-55; Col 6 l.1-10)
Gersten fails to disclose:
wherein the third radius is 0.5 up to 1.0 times radius of the pupil of the eye.
However, Herranen in the field of optometric instruments discloses: wherein the radius is 0.5 up to 1.0 times radius of the pupil of the eye. (¶0028: The light channels are preferably arranged so that the distance between the points are determined on the basis of the size of the pupil, preferably corresponding to the size of the pupil i.e. ca 5 mm. If the mutual distance of the points is too long, the invention does not work in the intended way, since then the light would not hit the retina via the cornea of the eye of the patient as it should.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the third radius of Gersten to incorporate the teachings of Herranen. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as ensuring light reaches the retina and preventing alignment failure as suggested by Herranen, ¶0028.
Claim 6: Modified Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 4, Gersten fails to disclose: wherein the predetermined distance (D) is an operating range of a tonometer from the first output facet to the surface of the eye.
However, Herranen in the field of optometric instruments discloses: the predetermined distance (D) is an operating range of a tonometer from the first output facet to the surface of the eye (¶0072-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system and method of modified Gersten to incorporate the teachings of Herranen. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as for improving the alignment between the instrument and retina as suggested by Herranen, ¶0072-0073.
Claim 10: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Gersten fails to disclose: wherein the hollow body is configured to surround an eye probe comprised in the tonometer.
However, Herranen in the field of optometric instruments discloses: wherein the hollow body (¶0030) is configured to surround (¶0076) an eye probe comprised in the tonometer (¶0062, ¶0076, ¶0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the hollow body of Gersten to incorporate the teachings of Herranen. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to allow accurate, non-clinical intraocular pressure (IOP) measurements, as suggested by Herranen, ¶0063-0064.
Claims 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gersten et al (US4863260A), as applied to claim 2, in further view of Miller (A handheld open-field infant keratometer (an american ophthalmological society thesis). Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 2010 Dec).
Claim 7: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 2, Gersten fails to disclose: wherein the first radius (r1) is: r1= -r2 x (D-f)/f, wherein r2 the second radius, D is the predetermined distance and f is half of curvature of the eye surface.
However, Miller in the context of keratometry discloses, the relevant object, image, distance, and focal-length quantities, but does not expressly state the derived mathematical (r1) is: r1= -r2 x (D-f)/f, from the known mirror equation. Miller does teach in equation 2 the mirror equation and in equation 3 the magnification / similar triangles equation. The formula claimed is simply a straightforward algebraic rearrangement of these exact two equations with equation 5 and solving for OD instead of KR, which would teach the calculation of the first radius. In other words, Miller teaches the complete optical and governing equations, algebraically rearranging Eq. 5 to express OR (i.e., first radius) in terms of image size and focal length is a trivial mathematical manipulation that would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. (see pg. 78-79).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gernsten to incorporate the teachings of Miller’s disclosure of keratometric relationship in terms of the object radius as a function of image radius, and object distance, and focal length. Because Miller teaches the complete optical and governing equations, algebraically rearranging Eq. 5 to express OR (i.e., first radius) in terms of image size and focal length is a trivial mathematical manipulation. In addition, Miller teaches that the keratometer may control or vary the size of the object until the corneal image reaches a desired size, pg. 79. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have algebraically rearranged Miller’s discloses relationships, to obtain the claimed equation. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to “control the size of the object (by making object larger or smaller, until the corneal image size meets a desired end point [...])”, as suggested by Miller, pg. 79.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gersten et al (US4863260A), as applied to claim 3, in further view of Parks et al (US 20210235988 A1)
Claim 8: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 3, Gersten fails to disclose: wherein the predefined distance (D) lies in a range of 4 millimetres to 8 millimetres.
However, Parks in the context of positioning system for ophthalmic instruments discloses: wherein the predefined distance (D) lies in a range of 4 millimetres to 8 millimetres (¶0033 & ¶0042: working distance of 6.00 mm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the predefined distance of modified Gersten to incorporate the teachings of Parks. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as ensuring measurement accuracy and repeatability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gersten et al (US4863260A) in view of Herranen et al (US 20160174838 A1), as applied to claim 10, in further view of Kontiola (US6093147A)
Claim 11: Modified Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 10, Gersten fails to disclose: further comprising a detachable tube configured to be accommodated inside the through opening, wherein the detachable tube is configured to accommodate the eye probe for attaching or detaching the eye probe to the tonometer.
However, Kontiola in the context of measuring intraocular pressure discloses: further comprising a detachable tube (Claim 6: detachable sleeve component) configured to be accommodated inside the through opening (Col 3 l.52-55 The shaft of the probe is surrounded by a tube-like part 17 [...] the shaft 11 of the probe moves inside this sleeve linearly and precisely), wherein the detachable tube is configured to accommodate the eye probe (11) for attaching or detaching the eye probe to the tonometer (The sleeve component configured to accommodate the probe shaft is for mounting and guiding it in the tonometer, FIG. 3-4; Col 3 l.52-55, Claim 6, Claim 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the attachment of modified Kontiola to incorporate the detachable tube of Kontiola. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to meet hygiene requirements, as suggested by Kontiola, Col 3 l.15-23)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gersten et al (US4863260A), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Inoue et al (Images created in a model eye during simulated cataract surgery can be the basis for images perceived by patients during cataract surgery. Eye (Lond). 2014 Jul;28(7))
Claim 12: Gersten discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Gersten fails to disclose: wherein the one or more light sources are operable to generate stray light
However, Inoue in the context of images perceived by patients during model eye imaging discloses: wherein the one or more light sources are operable to generate stray light ([Discussion pg. 876-878]: “Our results showed that the objects and instruments in the anterior chamber formed on the frosted posterior surface were seen as defocused dark masses or dark shafts illuminated by the light from the microscope. [...] the bright light from the microscope probably hampered the formation of the images outside the eye. This was also true for the intracameral lens fragments and instruments during the simulated cataract surgery. [...] the visual images were blurred under the bright light from the microscope inhibiting clear identification of the direction of the inserting instruments. [...] In conclusion, [...] The bright light from the microscope may hamper the visibility of the images of the surroundings of the eye and the objects inserted into the anterior chamber during cataract surgery.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the one or more light sources of Gersten to be operable to generate stray light as taught by Inoue. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as reducing preoperative patient anxiety as suggested by Inoue, [Discussion pg. 876-878].
Regarding the limitations of claim 12 - “that obscures visibility of the eye probe during measurement of at least one property of the eye." directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the invention modified Gersten is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant, see MPEP 2114.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parks et al (US 20210235988 A1) in view of Gersten et al (US4863260A).
Claim 14: Park discloses: A method of determining a distance between a surface of the eye (¶0003-0004) and a tonometer (¶0003-0004, ¶0008, ¶0051, ¶0057; distance determination between the surface of the eye and tonometer for positioning.), the method comprising using an optical attachment (FIG. 6)
Parks fails to disclose the optical attachment according to claim 1, to provide a first illuminated image of a first output facet of the optical attachment on the surface of the eye.
However, Gersten in the field of Optometric instruments discloses: An optical attachment for emitting light towards a target, the optical attachment comprising: (¶Abstract; Col 3 l.6-25; Col 4 ll.6-25)
a hollow body (cone 10, extension tube 18 and interior plastic disc 18F that form a cylindrical/conical assembly defining a central corridor 11.) of light guiding material (Col 2 l.61-67; Col 4 l.6-12, 15-30: plastic body material is a light transmitting/guiding, allowing the light lamps 14 to pass through and be guided across the body. / the opaque coating lines 9.), the hollow body comprising a through opening (Col 3 l.65-68; Col 4 l.11-15, 36-44: central corridor 11 extends completely though the center of the hollow body along the optical axis.), an outer surface (The hollow body (including cylinder 18, disc 18F, and cone 10) possess an exterior peripheral surface surrounding the central corridor 11, FIG. 6-1), an inner surface opposite to the outer surface (The interior wall surrounding the central passage way 11 defines an inner surface opposite the outer surface; FIG. 6-1), a first output facet (see annotated FIG. 6-1 below), and a posterior facet opposite (The posterior region extending into or borders light box housing 15 to receive illumination from lamps 14; see annotated FIG. 6-1 below) to the first output facet (see annotated FIG. 6-1 below); and
PNG
media_image1.png
460
791
media_image1.png
Greyscale
the posterior facet arranged to receive light from one or more light sources (14)and to guide the received light via the hollow body towards the first output facet; (Col 4 l.6-25, 57-61: light box 15 contains lamps 14 surrounding the posterior portion of plastic disc 18F and cylinder 18. Light from the lamps 14 is received at this portion and guided though the light-transmitting material of the hollow body toward the output face and ring apertures 13 cut into the opaque lining) and
wherein the first output facet when in use is configured to emit the light towards the target forming a first illuminated image of the first output facet on the target (i.e., to provide a first illuminated image of a first output facet () of the optical attachment on the surface of the eye) (Col 2 l. 61-67; Col 4 l.15-25, 36-44, 57-61; Col 5 l.11-20: When lamps 14 are powered, light emitted from the output ring apertures 13 on the face of the hollow body projects towards target cornea or reference sphere 6. This emitted light reflects off the target surface to for a corresponding illuminated ring image (mire 13’) on the target.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical attachment of Parks to incorporate the optical attachment of Gersten. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as to project a clearer or more complete illuminated patten onto the surface of the eye for visual and camera alignment.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Parks et al (US 20210235988 A1) in view of Gersten et al (US4863260A), as applied to claim 14, in further view of Herranen et al (US 20160174838 A1).
Claim 15: Modified Parks discloses all the elements above in claim 14, Park fails to disclose: wherein the method further comprising moving the tonometer towards the surface of the eye and observing a first radius of the first illuminated image in respect to a radius pupil of the eye.
However, Herranen in the field of optometric instruments discloses: wherein the method further comprising moving the tonometer towards the surface of the eye (FIG. 4a-4B) and observing a first radius of the first illuminated image (¶0102-0103) in respect to a radius pupil of the eye (¶0028: The light channels are preferably arranged so that the distance between the points are determined on the basis of the size of the pupil, preferably corresponding to the size of the pupil i.e. ca 5 mm. If the mutual distance of the points is too long, the invention does not work in the intended way, since then the light would not hit the retina via the cornea of the eye of the patient as it should., see also ¶0072-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify tonometer of modified Parks to incorporate the teachings of Herranen. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as ensuring light reaches the retina and preventing alignment failure as suggested by Herranen, ¶0028.
Claim 16: Modified Parks discloses all the elements above in claim 15, Park fails to disclose: wherein the tonometer is at right distance when the first radius is 1.0 up to 1.2 times larger in than the radius of the pupil of the eye.
However, Herranen in the field of optometric instruments discloses: wherein the tonometer is at right distance when the first radius is 1.0 up to 1.2 times larger in than the radius of the pupil of the eye. (¶0028: The light channels are preferably arranged so that the distance between the points are determined on the basis of the size of the pupil, preferably corresponding to the size of the pupil i.e. ca 5 mm. If the mutual distance of the points is too long, the invention does not work in the intended way, since then the light would not hit the retina via the cornea of the eye of the patient as it should. See also ¶0072-0073).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first radius of modified Parks to incorporate the teachings of Herranen. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as ensuring light reaches the retina and preventing alignment failure as suggested by Herranen, ¶0028.
Claim 17: Modified Parks discloses all the elements above in claim 16, Park discloses: wherein when the tonometer is at the right distance, performing a measurement of an property of the eye with the tonometer. (¶0002-0003, ¶0007, ¶0012, ¶0051, ¶0055),
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights