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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 5/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 16 have been amended, and claim 4 has been cancelled. Claims 6, 8, 10-11, 15, and 19-20 remain cancelled. All other claims remain as originally or previously presented. Rejections of amended claims have been updated or addressed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed on 3/18/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 12-14, 16-18, and 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made with Palanker (previously cited) in view of Kondis (previously cited) and Ishida (new).
The examiner has agreed that Kondis, which was relied upon in the prior office
action for teaching a spatial light modulator (SLM), does not disclose that the SLM modulates the laser beam to form the plurality of focus spots along the propagation axis of the laser beam. Kondis teaches an analogous system that comprises a SLM that is used to modulate a laser beam [0019] in order to achieve a desired radial intensity profile.
Ishida, however, which is discussed in greater detail below, teaches a spatial light modulator that can be used to modulate a light or laser beam and form a plurality of focus spots along the propagation axis of a laser beam (See Annotated Fig. 1). Ishida teaches that a spatial light modulator is capable of modulating a laser beam in such a way that multiple focal points can be formed along a propagation axis.
Therefore, the examiner ascertains that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Palanker with the spatial light modulator disclosed in Kondis, as it would also be understood that the SLM disclosed in Kondis would be capable of modulating a light or laser beam in such a way that is disclosed in Ishida. See the prior art rejections discussed in greater detail below.
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 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 1-3, 5, 9, 12-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanker et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0366712) in view of Kondis et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0159889) and Ishida et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,175,497).
Regarding claim 1, Palanker teaches an ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1,
Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2), comprising: a laser source (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 4, 10) configured to generate a laser beam (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 6, 11) of ultrashort laser pulses (Paragraph 0052, lines 5-9) to perform a surgery on an eye (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 2, 1); multi-focal optics (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 4-6, 30) configured to multiplex (Paragraph 0068, lines 6-7) the laser beam to yield a plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, Paragraph 0068, lines 9-10, F1/F2/F3) in a target (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 2-3) along a propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam, the plurality of focus points comprising a shallower focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 1-5) and a deeper focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 1-5); a plurality of scanners (Paragraph 0060, line 8) configured to direct the laser beam in x, y, and z directions (Paragraph 0077, lines 6-7), the z direction defined by an optical axis of the laser system (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0079, lines 23-24), the x and y directions orthogonal to the z-direction (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0079, lines 21-22); delivery optics (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 13-14, 18) configured to focus the laser beam within (Paragraph 0019, lines 5-7) the target (Paragraph 0047, lines 14-15) to form the plurality of focus spots in the target along the propagation axis of the laser beam (Fig. 1); and a computer (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 7, 12) configured to: determine a maximum acceptable energy loss for an energy loss according to the surgery (Paragraph 0065, lines 12-13), the energy loss due to an obscuration effect of the shallower focus point on the deeper focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 14-16); determine a scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 4-7) of the plurality of focus spots with a spatial separation (Paragraph 0091, lines 9-11) that maintains the energy loss below the maximum acceptable energy loss (Paragraph 0091, lines 11-14); and instruct the scanners and the delivery optics to: direct and focus the plurality of focus spots at the target according to the scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 9-12); and simultaneously form the plurality of focus spots (Paragraph 0065, lines 1-2) within the target (Paragraph 0070, lines 4-5) along the propagation axis (Paragraph 0068, lines 1-4) with the spatial separation between the shallower focus point and the deeper focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 3-5).
Palanker does not teach that the multi-focal optics comprise a spatial light modulator that modulates the laser beam to form the plurality of focus spots along the propagation axis of the laser beam.
Kondis, however teaches an optical system (Fig. 2A-2C, Paragraph 0019, line 1, 120) used for ophthalmological surgery that includes a spatial light modulator (Paragraph 0019, lines 3-4) that modulates a feature of the laser beam (Paragraph 0019, lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Kondis to include that the multi-focal optics comprise a spatial light modulator that modulates a feature of the laser beam. Doing so would ensure that the light beam can be modulated to form a custom radial intensity profile (Paragraph 0019, lines 1-5), in order to provide the optimal surgical outcome to the patient, as recognized by Kondis.
Neither Palanker nor Kondis disclose that the spatial light modulator modulates the laser beam to form the plurality of focal spots along the propagation axis of the laser beam. Ishida, however, discloses an illumination device (Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 33, 10) that includes a screen (Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 34, 15) and a projector (Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 34, 20). Ishida also teaches that the projector comprises a spatial light modulator (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 37-38, 30). Furthermore, Ishida teaches that the spatial light modulator is capable of modulating light or a laser beam (Col. 4, lines 9-11) to form a plurality of focus spots along a propagation axis (See Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 (Ishida)
One of ordinary skill in the art at would have found it obvious to update Palanker and Kondis using the spatial light modulator as found in Ishida, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as the ability to multiplex a laser beam to eliminate interference (Col. 7, lines 30-37) and yield a plurality of focus spots along a propagation axis (See Annotated Fig. 1), as recognized by Ishida. This would be accomplished with no unpredictable results. As stated in Leapfrog, "applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace for years." (Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, 485 F.3d 1157, 82USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir 2007))
Regarding claim 2, Palanker in view of Kondis and Ishida discloses the claimed invention of claim 1. Palanker further discloses the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 1, the multi-focal optics (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 4-6, 30) comprising a diffractive optical element (Paragraph 0068, lines 10-11) that multiplexes (Paragraph 0068, lines 6-7) the laser beam (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 6, 11) to yield the plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, Paragraph 0068, lines 9-10, F1/F2/F3) along the propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 3, Palanker in view of Kondis and Ishida discloses the claimed invention of claim 1. Palanker further discloses the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 1, the multi-focal optics (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 4-6, 30) comprising a holographic optical element (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0069, lines 4-5) with an interference pattern with a high diffraction efficiency (Fig. 7A-7B) that yields the plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, Paragraph 0068, lines 9-10, F1/F2/F3) along the propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 5, Palanker teaches the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 1, the spatial separation (Paragraph 0091, lines 9-11) greater than the depth of focus of the laser beam. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separation range disclosed by Palanker in view of Palanker’s disclosure that a shallower focus spot that lies before a deeper focus spot (see Paragraph 0069) may cause “unwanted beam attenuation” at the deeper focus spot. Thus, by increasing the spatial separation distance between the two focus spots, it is possible to prevent this “unwanted beam attenuation.” Additionally, as per MPEP 2144.05, as taught by in re Wertheim, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap of lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” especially when there is no demonstrated criticality of ranges (for example, ranges containing equal to greater than depth of focus).
Regarding claim 9, Palanker teaches the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 1, the computer (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 7, 12) configured to: determine the scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 4-7) for the target (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 2-3) for presbyopia (Paragraph 0108, line 14).
Palanker does not teach that the computer determines the scan pattern for the target for hyperopia, myopia, or astigmatism correction of the eye. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that treating presbyopia, a condition involving a refractive error that prevents the eye from focusing correctly, would suggest treating eye conditions that also constitute refractive errors wherein the eye cannot focus correctly, for example myopia, in order to improve patient eyesight by correcting the refractive error.
Regarding claim 12, Palanker teaches an ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, paragraph 0047, lines 1-2), comprising: a laser source (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 4, 10) configured to generate a laser beam (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 6, 11) of ultrashort laser pulses (Paragraph 0052, lines 5-9) to perform a surgery on an eye (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 2, 1); multi-focal optics (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 4-6, 30) configured to multiplex (Paragraph 0068, lines 6-7) the laser beam to yield a plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, Paragraph 0068, lines 9-10, F1/F2/F3) in a target (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 2-3) along a propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam, the plurality of focus points comprising a shallower focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 1-5) and a deeper focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 1-5), the multi-focal optics comprising a computer (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 7, 12) that controls (Paragraph 0047, lines 7-11) and modulates a feature (Paragraph 0068, lines 11-16) of the laser beam to form the plurality of focus spots along the propagation axis of the laser beam; a plurality of scanners (Paragraph 0060, line 8) configured to direct the laser beam in x, y, and z directions (Paragraph 0077, lines 6-7), the z direction defined by an optical axis of the laser system (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0079, lines 23-24), the x and y directions orthogonal to the z-direction (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0079, lines 21-22); delivery optics (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 13-14, 18) configured to focus the laser beam within (Paragraph 0019, lines 5-7) the target (Paragraph 0047, lines 14-15) to form the plurality of focus spots in the target along the propagation axis of the laser beam (Fig. 1); and a computer (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 7, 12) configured to: determine a maximum acceptable energy loss of an energy loss according to the surgery (Paragraph 0065, lines 12-13), the energy loss due to an obscuration effect of the shallower focus point on the deeper focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 14-16); determine a scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 4-7) of the plurality of focus spots with a spatial separation (Paragraph 0091, lines 9-11) that maintains the energy loss below the maximum acceptable energy loss (Paragraph 0091, lines 11-14); and instruct the scanners and the delivery optics to direct and to focus the plurality of focus spots within the target (Paragraph 0070, lines 4-5) according to the scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 9-12) in order to simultaneously form the plurality of focus spots (Paragraph 0065, lines 1-2) along the propagation axis (Paragraph 0068, lines 1-4) with the spatial separation between the shallower focus point and the deeper focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 3-5).
Palanker does not teach that the multi-focal optics comprise a computer-controlled spatial light modulator that modulates a feature of the laser beam to form the plurality of focus spots along the propagation axis of the laser beam.
Kondis, however teaches an optical system (Fig. 2A-2C, Paragraph 0019, line 1, 120) used for ophthalmological surgery that includes a spatial light modulator (Paragraph 0019, lines 3-4) that modulates a feature of the laser beam (Paragraph 0019, lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Kondis to include that the multi-focal optics comprise a spatial light modulator that modulates a feature of the laser beam. Doing so would ensure that the light beam can be modulated to form a custom radial intensity profile (Paragraph 0019, lines 1-5), in order to provide the optimal surgical outcome to the patient, as recognized by Kondis.
Neither Palanker nor Kondis disclose that the spatial light modulator modulates the laser beam to form the plurality of focal spots along the propagation axis of the laser beam. Ishida, however, discloses an illumination device (Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 33, 10) that includes a screen (Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 34, 15) and a projector (Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 34, 20). Ishida also teaches that the projector comprises a spatial light modulator (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 37-38, 30). Furthermore, Ishida teaches that the spatial light modulator is capable of modulating light or a laser beam (Col. 4, lines 9-11) to form a plurality of focus spots along a propagation axis (See Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 (Ishida)
One of ordinary skill in the art at would have found it obvious to update Palanker and Kondis using the spatial light modulator as found in Ishida, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as the ability to multiplex a laser beam to eliminate interference (Col. 7, lines 30-37) and yield a plurality of focus spots along a propagation axis (See Annotated Fig. 1), as recognized by Ishida. This would be accomplished with no unpredictable results. As stated in Leapfrog, "applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace for years." (Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, 485 F.3d 1157, 82USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir 2007))
Although Kondis and Ishida do not explicitly disclose that the spatial light modulator (SLM) is controlled by a computer, it would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that an SLM is typically controlled by a computer that uses computer programs to manipulate light or laser beams.
Palanker also does not teach that the surgery comprises hyperopia, myopia, or astigmatism correction of the eye. Palanker does teach that the surgery can comprise presbyopia (Paragraph 0108, line 14) correction of the eye. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that treating presbyopia, a condition involving a refractive error that prevents the eye from focusing correctly, would suggest treating eye conditions that also constitute refractive errors wherein the eye cannot focus correctly, for example myopia, in order to improve patient eyesight by correcting the refractive error.
Regarding claim 13, Palanker in view of Kondis and Ishida discloses the claimed
invention of claim 12. Palanker further discloses the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 12, the multi-focal optics (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 4-6, 30) comprising a diffractive optical element (Paragraph 0068, lines 10-11) that multiplexes (Paragraph 0068, lines 6-7) the laser beam (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 6, 11) to yield the plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, Paragraph 0068, lines 9-10, F1/F2/F3) along the propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 14, Palanker in view of Kondis and Ishida discloses the claimed
invention of claim 12. Palanker further discloses the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 12, the multi-focal optics (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 4-6, 30) comprising a holographic optical element (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0069, lines 4-5) with an interference pattern with a high diffraction efficiency (Fig. 7A-7B) that yields the plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, Paragraph 0068, lines 9-10, F1/F2/F3) along the propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 16, Palanker teaches a method (Paragraph 0059, line 8) for scanning a laser beam (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 6, 11) of an ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2), comprising: determining, by a computer (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 7, 12), a maximum acceptable energy loss of an energy loss (Paragraph 0065, lines 12-13) according to a surgery of an eye (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 2, 1), the surgery performed using a plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, Paragraph 0068, lines 9-10, F1/F2/F3) comprising a shallower focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 1-5) and a deeper focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 1-5), the energy loss due to an obscuration effect of the shallower focus point on the deeper focus point (Paragraph 0065, lines 14-16); determining, by the computer, a scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 4-7) of the plurality of focus spots with a spatial separation (Paragraph 0091, lines 9-11) that maintains the energy loss below the maximum acceptable energy loss (Paragraph 0091, lines 11-14); generating, by a laser source (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 4, 10), the laser beam of ultrashort laser pulses (Paragraph 0052, lines 5-9) to perform the surgery; multiplexing (Paragraph 0068, lines 6-7), by multi-focal optics (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 4-6, 30), the laser beam to yield the plurality of focus spots in a target (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 2-3) along a propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam; instructing, by the computer, a plurality of scanners (Paragraph 0060, line 8) and delivery optics (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 13-14, 18) to direct and to focus the plurality of focus spots within (Paragraph 0070, lines 4-5) the target according to the scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 9-12) to simultaneously form (Paragraph 0065, lines 1-2) the plurality of focus spots along the propagation axis (Paragraph 0068, lines 1-4); directing, by the scanners, the laser beam in x, y, and z directions (Paragraph 0077, lines 6-7), the z direction defined by an optical axis of the laser system (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0079, lines 23-24), the x and y directions orthogonal to the z-direction (Fig. 7A-7B, Paragraph 0079, lines 21-22); focusing, by the delivery optics, the laser beam within (Paragraph 0019, lines 5-7) the target (Paragraph 0047, lines 14-15) to form the plurality of focus spots in the target along the propagation axis of the laser beam (Fig. 1).
Palanker does not teach that the multi-focal optics comprise a spatial light modulator that modulates the laser beam to form the plurality of focus spots along the propagation axis of the laser beam.
Kondis, however teaches an optical system (Fig. 2A-2C, Paragraph 0019, line 1, 120) used for ophthalmological surgery that includes a spatial light modulator (Paragraph 0019, lines 3-4) that modulates a feature of the laser beam (Paragraph 0019, lines 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Kondis to include that the multi-focal optics comprise a spatial light modulator that modulates a feature of the laser beam. Doing so would ensure that the light beam can be modulated to form a custom radial intensity profile (Paragraph 0019, lines 1-5), in order to provide the optimal surgical outcome to the patient, as recognized by Kondis.
Neither Palanker nor Kondis disclose that the spatial light modulator modulates the laser beam to form the plurality of focal spots along the propagation axis of the laser beam. Ishida, however, discloses an illumination device (Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 33, 10) that includes a screen (Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 34, 15) and a projector (Fig. 1, Col. 3, line 34, 20). Ishida also teaches that the projector comprises a spatial light modulator (Fig. 1, Col. 3, lines 37-38, 30). Furthermore, Ishida teaches that the spatial light modulator is capable of modulating light or a laser beam (Col. 4, lines 9-11) to form a plurality of focus spots along a propagation axis (See Annotated Fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
282
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 (Ishida)
One of ordinary skill in the art at would have found it obvious to update Palanker and Kondis using the spatial light modulator as found in Ishida, in order to gain the commonly understood benefits of such adaptation, such as the ability to multiplex a laser beam to eliminate interference (Col. 7, lines 30-37) and yield a plurality of focus spots along a propagation axis (See Annotated Fig. 1), as recognized by Ishida. This would be accomplished with no unpredictable results. As stated in Leapfrog, "applying modern electronics to older mechanical devices has been commonplace for years." (Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, 485 F.3d 1157, 82USPQ2d 1687 (Fed. Cir 2007))
Regarding claim 17, Palanker teaches the method (Paragraph 0059, line 8) of claim 16, the spatial separation (Paragraph 0091, lines 9-11) greater than the depth of focus of the laser beam. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the separation range disclosed by Palanker in view of Palanker’s disclosure that a shallower focus spot that lies before a deeper focus spot (see Paragraph 0069) may cause “unwanted beam attenuation” at the deeper focus spot. Thus, by increasing the spatial separation distance between the two focus spots, it is possible to prevent this “unwanted beam attenuation.” Additionally, as per MPEP 2144.05, as taught by in re Wertheim, “in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap of lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists,” especially when there is no demonstrated criticality of ranges (for example, ranges containing equal to greater than depth of focus).
Regarding claim 18, Palanker teaches the method (Paragraph 0059, line 8) of claim 16: further comprising: determining, by the computer (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 7, 12), the scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 4-7) for the target (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 2-3) for presbyopia (Paragraph 0108, line 14).
Palanker does not teach that the computer determines the scan pattern for the target for hyperopia, myopia, or astigmatism correction of the eye. However, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that treating presbyopia, a condition involving a refractive error that prevents the eye from focusing correctly, would suggest treating eye conditions that also constitute refractive errors wherein the eye cannot focus correctly, for example myopia, in order to improve patient eyesight by correcting the refractive error.
Claims 7 and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanker et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0366712) in view of Kondis et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0159889) and Ishida et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,175,497) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Zheleznyak et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0243082).
Regarding claim 7, Palanker teaches the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 1 with a target (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 2-3).
Palanker does not teach that the target comprises a laser adjustable lens for the eye. Zheleznyak, however, teaches a vision correction laser system where the target (Paragraph 0083, line 2) comprises a laser adjustable lens for the eye (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Zheleznyak to include that the target comprises a laser adjustable lens for the eye. Doing so would enhance treatment efficiency and ensure that the target can be modified based on a patient’s changing ocular physiology (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13), as recognized by Zheleznyak.
Regarding claim 21, Palanker teaches the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 7, where the computer (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 7, 12) is configured to determine the scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 4-7). Palanker does not teach that the computer is configured to determine the scan pattern to adjust a refractive property of the laser adjustable lens.
Zheleznyak, however, teaches a vision correction laser system where the target (Paragraph 0083, line 2) comprises a laser adjustable lens for the eye (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13). Furthermore, Zheleznyak teaches that the system includes a computer (Paragraph 0109, line 2) that is configured to determine the scan pattern (Paragraph 0109, lines 2-5) to adjust a refractive property (Paragraph 0109, lines 9-12) of the laser adjustable lens.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Zheleznyak to include that the computer is configured to determine the scan pattern to adjust a refractive property of the laser adjustable lens. Doing so would enhance treatment efficiency and ensure that the target can be modified based on a patient’s changing ocular physiology (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13), as recognized by Zheleznyak.
Regarding claim 22, Palanker teaches the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 7, where the computer (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 7, 12) is configured to determine the scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 4-7). Palanker does not teach that the computer is configured to determine the scan pattern to increase a refractive index at a central area of the laser adjustable lens to treat hyperopia.
Zheleznyak, however, teaches a vision correction laser system where the target (Paragraph 0083, line 2) comprises a laser adjustable lens for the eye (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13). Furthermore, Zheleznyak teaches the system includes a computer (Paragraph 0109, line 2) that is configured to determine the scan pattern (Paragraph 0109, lines 2-5) to increase a refractive index (Paragraph 0081, lines 35-37) at a central area of the laser adjustable lens (Paragraph 0009, lines 6-7) to treat hyperopia (Paragraph 0035, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Zheleznyak to include that the computer is configured to determine the scan pattern to increase a refractive index at a central area of the laser adjustable lens to treat hyperopia. Doing so would enhance treatment efficiency and ensure that the target can be modified based on a patient’s changing ocular physiology (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13), as recognized by Zheleznyak.
Regarding claim 23, Palanker teaches the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 7, where the computer (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, line 7, 12) is configured to determine the scan pattern (Paragraph 0090, lines 4-7). Palanker does not teach that the computer is configured to determine the scan pattern to increase a refractive index at a central area of the laser adjustable lens to treat myopia.
Zheleznyak, however, teaches a vision correction laser system where the target (Paragraph 0083, line 2) comprises a laser adjustable lens for the eye (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13). Furthermore, Zheleznyak teaches the system includes a computer (Paragraph 0109, line 2) that is configured to determine the scan pattern (Paragraph 0109, lines 2-5) to increase a refractive index (Paragraph 0081, lines 35-37) at a central area of the laser adjustable lens (Paragraph 0009, lines 6-7) to treat myopia (Paragraph 0035, line 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Zheleznyak to include that the computer is configured to determine the scan pattern to increase a refractive index at a central area of the laser adjustable lens to treat myopia. Doing so would enhance treatment efficiency and ensure that the target can be modified based on a patient’s changing ocular physiology (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13), as recognized by Zheleznyak.
Regarding claim 24, Palanker teaches the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 1 that includes a target (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 2-3). Palanker does not teach that the target comprises a cornea of the eye. Zheleznyak, however, teaches a vision correction laser system where the target (Paragraph 0083, line 2) comprises a cornea (Paragraph 0004, line 6) of the eye.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Zheleznyak to include that the target comprises a cornea of the eye. Doing so would ensure that the cornea of the eye can be modified based on a patient’s changing ocular physiology (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13), as recognized by Zheleznyak.
Regarding claim 25, Palanker teaches the ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 1-2) of claim 1 that includes a target (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 2-3). Palanker does not teach that the target comprises a natural lens of the eye. Zheleznyak, however, teaches a vision correction laser system where the target (Paragraph 0083, line 2) comprises a natural lens (Paragraph 0004, line 7) of the eye.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Zheleznyak to include that the target comprises a natural lens of the eye. Doing so would ensure that the natural lens of the eye can be modified based on a patient’s changing ocular physiology (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13), as recognized by Zheleznyak.
Regarding claim 26, Palanker teaches the method (Paragraph 0059, line 8) of claim 16 that includes a target (Fig. 1, Paragraph 0047, lines 2-3). Palanker does not teach that the target comprises a cornea of the eye. Zheleznyak, however, teaches a vision correction laser system where the target (Paragraph 0083, line 2) comprises a cornea (Paragraph 0004, line 6) of the eye.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Palanker to incorporate the teachings of Zheleznyak to include that the target comprises a cornea of the eye. Doing so would ensure that the cornea of the eye can be modified based on a patient’s changing ocular physiology (Paragraph 0109, lines 1-13), as recognized by Zheleznyak.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Heidi Hilsmier whose telephone number is (571)272-2984. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Fridays from 7:30 AM - 3:30 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 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.
/H.A.H./Patent Examiner , Art Unit 3796
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights