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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/17/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The Applicant has amended the claims to teach gathering second feedback signals about how much of the opacity has been removed and then using this feedback to control the x-y position of the OCT imaging beam. The art of Herren teaches in Fig 3 and Par. 0042-0045 that the imaging system, which can be an OCT (Par. 0017) can take images of the eye in real time and see if there is more of the opacity left to be removed. If there is more to be removed, the imaging system can reimage and can send control signals to adjust the x-y positioning of the treatment based on the opacity. While Heeren teaches controlling the position of the system as a whole, they do not teach using feedback signals to control the x-y position of the OCT independently from the laser system. De Boer however teaches an OCT system that is capable of using real time dynamic feedback about an opacity to adjust the scan position in both the lateral and axial directions. Based on these pieces of art, using an OCT imager to view the treatment area is known (see Heeren) and adjusting the x-y position of the OCT based on media opacity is known (See De Boer), so it would be obvious to view the treatment area consistent with the claim limitations.
Regarding the Applicant’s arguments that the art of De Boer does not teach the laser beams, it is not being relied upon for that information. Heeren is being used to teach a system with an OCT and treatment laser wherein the system can take in specific imaging feedback and control the positions of the laser. De Boer is being used to teach that you can also independently control the position of the OCT based on the imaging feedback. Therefore, the rejection still stands.
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.
3. Claim(s) 1, 2, and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heeren (US 20180028354 A1) in view of Samec (US 20160270656 A1) and in further view of De Boer (US 20060039004 A1).
In regards to claim 1, Heeren discloses a laser treatment system (Abstract) comprising:
an optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging system (Par. 0017 discloses an OCT system) operable to:
generate a plurality of profile depth scans (Par. 0032 and Figs 4A-4L teaches the OCT imaging depths of the eye);
a three-dimensional ("3D") camera system (Par. 0027 discloses the system comprising a camera) comprising:
a 3D eye tracker (Par. 0040) operable to:
track a position and volume of a media opacity between the lens of the eye and the retina of the eye in the eye based on the plurality of profile depth scans (Par. 0040-0042 discloses tracking the position of the opacity);
provide a first real time feedback indication about the position and the volume of the media opacity (Par. 0040-0042 and Fig 3 teach tracking the opacity and providing real-time feedback about the position of the opacity until is it removed/not present); and
provide a second real time feedback indication to signal if the media opacity has at least been partially removed (Par.0042-0045 and Fig 3 teach taking images of the eye in real time and see if there is more of the opacity left to be removed, i.e. if it has been partially removed); and
a laser system comprising a treatment laser and operable to:
control, via the control device, a position of a laser beam of the treatment laser to precisely target a plurality of ultra-short laser pulses generated by the treatment laser at the media opacity in the eye to at least partially remove the media opacity precisely target a plurality of ultra-short laser pulses generated by the treatment laser at the media opacity in the eye to at least partially remove the media opacity (Par. 0039 teaches a laser system is used to remove the opacity).
Heeren does not disclose the camera being a three-dimensional high dimensional camera system comprising: a pair of complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensors or a pair of charge coupled sensors.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Samec discloses methods for imaging and treating the eye wherein there is a 3D camera (Par. 1738) that comprises a high dynamic range ("HDR") camera system with a pair of two-dimensional (2D) complementary metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) sensor (Par. 1949) for the purpose of providing more accurate information to the system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Heeren and modified them by having the treatment system comprise a 3D camera, as taught and suggested by Samec, for the purpose of providing more accurate information to the system.
The combined teachings of Heeren and Samec disclose an OCT imaging device; however, they do not disclose wherein the OCT imaging system emits an imaging beam and comprises an OCT scanner controller configured to control a X-Y position of an OCT imaging beam based on feedback, the X-Y position of the OCT imaging beam being controlled independently of the position of the laser beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor, De Boer discloses a system for applying a laser to an eye wherein OCT methods are employed (Par. 0002 and 0032), the system having an OCT scanner whose position is adjusted based on feedback about the location/depth/position of a sample or target (Par. 0034, “Both of these exemplary arrangements… are capable of using real time dynamic feedback to detect an axial location of features within a sample, and adjust the scan position and range accordingly. For example, an approximate location of a surface in a depth profile of the OCT scan may be located. The determination of the approximate location of the surface can be used to generate a feedback signal to, e.g., a ranging device in the reference arm of these systems”. Par. 0054 teaches this is not limited to the axial direction but can also be employed for the lateral direction.) in order to generate updated and precise scans.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Heeren and Samec and modified them by having an OCT scanner whose position is adjusted based on feedback about the location/depth/position of a sample or target, as taught and suggested by De Boer, in order to generate updated and precise scans.
In regards to claim 2, the combined teachings of Heeren, Samec, and De Boer as applied to claim 1 discloses the laser treatment system of claim 1, wherein the plurality of ultra-short laser pulses are uniformly targeted within a treatment volume (Par. 0044 of Heeren).
In regards to claim 4, the combined teachings of Heeren, Samec, and De Boer as applied to claim 1 discloses the laser treatment system of claim 1, wherein the OCT imaging system is operable to provide time domain OCT, frequency domain OCT, spectral domain OCT, swept source OCT, OCT angiography, or any combination thereof (Par. 0017 of Heeren discloses providing times of the OCT).
In regards to claims 5 and 6, the combined teachings of Heeren, Samec, and De Boer as applied to claim 1 discloses the laser treatment system of claim 1, except for wherein the treatment laser generates a pulse with a time duration of between about a femtosecond (10-15 s) and about 50 picoseconds (50 x 10-12 s) and wherein the treatment laser emits light with a wavelength of about 1,030 nm or about 1,050 nm.
However, Samec does go on to teach wherein the treatment laser generates a pulse with a time duration of between about a femtosecond (10-15 s) and about 50 picoseconds (50 x 10-12 s) (Par. 0819) and wherein the treatment laser emits light with a wavelength of about 1,030 nm or about 1,050 nm (Par. 1911-1912), in order to precisely and effectively remove the opacity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Heeren, Samec, and De Boer and modified them by using these claimed pulse durations and wavelengths, as further taught by Samec. in order to precisely and effectively remove the opacity.
4. Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heeren, Samec, and De Boer as applied above and in further view of Isogai (US 20170238798 A1)
In regards to claim 8, the combined teachings of Heeren, Samec, and Kurtz as applied to claim 1 discloses the laser treatment system of claim 1, except for wherein the laser system further comprises: a sweeping optical scanner operable to orient laser beam to provide a modulated and displaced laser beam (Par. 0017 of Heeren); and an optical focusing system operable to displace a focusing plane of the modulated and displaced laser beam to provide a plurality of cutout planes (Par. 0038 of Heeren discloses a focusing system to displace the beam path and define the treatment area, i.e. the cutout planes).
The combined teachings do not disclose a shaping system operable to modulate a phase of a laser beam to provide a phase- modulated laser beam. However, in the same field of endeavor, Isogai discloses an OCT device for imaging and treating cataracts (Abstract and Par. 0106) wherein a spatial light modulator, i.e. a shaping system, is used (Par. 0152) in order to modulate the laser beam.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Heeren, Samec, and De Boer and modified them by having the treatment system comprise a spatial light modulator, as taught and suggested by Isogai, in order to modulate the laser beam.
In regards to claim 9, the combined teachings of Heeren, Samec, De Boer, and Isogai as applied to claim 8 discloses the laser treatment system of claim 8, wherein the plurality of cutout planes define a treatment volume (Par. 0038 of Heeren discloses a focusing system to displace the beam path and define the treatment area, i.e. the cutout planes).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SKYLAR LINDSEY CHRISTIANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30-5:30 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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571) 272-4156. 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.
/S.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792