DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/25/2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. The response is below.
Regarding the prior art rejections under Palanker, these rejections are not
withdrawn. Applicant argues that Palanker does not disclose a computer configured to: determine a maximum acceptable energy loss for an energy loss according to the surgery, the energy loss due to an obscuration effect of the shallower focus point on the deeper focus point; determine a scan pattern of the plurality of focus spots with a spatial separation that maintains the energy loss below the maximum acceptable energy loss.
However, the examiner disagrees. Palanker teaches its goal is to “reduce beam attenuation”, or to minimize energy loss. Palanker also teaches that the system can determine maximum and minimum depths in tissue [0078]. Furthermore, Palanker discloses a “bottom up” treatment method that focuses on the maximal required depth in tissue, which in turn minimizes energy loss. Palanker also teaches that the energy loss is due to an obscuration affect “in tissue above (shallow focus points) the target tissue layer (deeper focus points)” [0065].
Finally, Palanker teaches determining scan pattern parameters of the plurality of focus spots in order to “provide a pulse spacing on tissue determined by the desired distance” [0091]. Palanker further teaches that the spatial separation correlates to the “length of the rupture zone”, which correlates to the distance of maximum acceptable energy loss. Therefore, the rejection of claims 1, 12, and 16 are not withdrawn.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Palanker et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0366712).
Regarding claim 1, Palanker teaches an ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, paragraph 0047, lines 1-2), comprising: a laser source (Paragraph 0047, line 4) configured to generate a laser beam (Paragraph 0047, line 6) of ultrashort laser pulses (Paragraph 0052, lines 5-9) to perform a surgery on an eye (Paragraph 0047, line 2); multi-focal optics (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0068, lines 4-6) 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) 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 (Paragraph 0047, lines 13-14) 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 (Paragraph 0047, line 7) 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).
Regarding claim 2, Palanker teaches 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) comprising a diffractive optical element (Paragraph 0068, lines 10-11) that multiplexes (Paragraph 0068, lines 6-7) the laser beam (Paragraph 0047, line 6) to yield the plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, paragraph 0068, lines 9-10) along the propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 3, Palanker teaches 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) 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) 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 (Paragraph 0047, line 6) of an ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, paragraph 0047, lines 1-2), comprising: determining, by a computer (Paragraph 0047, line 7), a maximum acceptable energy loss of an energy loss (Paragraph 0065, lines 12-13) according to a surgery of an eye (Paragraph 0047, line 2), the surgery performed using a plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, paragraph 0068, lines 9-10) 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 (Paragraph 0047, line 4), 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), 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 (Paragraph 0047, lines 13-14) 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 (Paragraph 0047, lines 13-14), 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).
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 5, 9, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanker et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0366712).
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 (Paragraph 0047, line 7) 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 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 (Paragraph 0047, line 7), 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), and further in view of Zheleznyak et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2018/0243082) (cited previously).
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, 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 (Paragraph 0047, line 7) 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, 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 (Paragraph 0047, line 7) 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, 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 (Paragraph 0047, line 7) 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, 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, 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 cornea 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, 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, as recognized by Zheleznyak.
Claims 4 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanker et al. (U.S. PGPub No. 2015/0366712), and further in view of Kondis (U.S. PGPub No. 2019/0159889) (cited previously).
Regarding claim 4, Palanker teaches 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) comprises a computer that controls (Paragraph 0047, lines 7-11) and modulates a feature (Paragraph 0068, lines 11-16) of the laser beam (Paragraph 0047, line 6) to form the plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, paragraph 0068, lines 9-10) along the propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam. Palanker does not teach a computer-controlled spatial light modulator that modulates a feature of the laser beam.
Kondis, however teaches an optical system (Paragraph 0019, line 1) 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 incision pattern created by the laser beam is finely and precisely modulated, in order to provide the optimal surgical outcome to the patient, as recognized by Kondis.
Regarding claim 12, Palanker teaches an ophthalmic laser system (Fig. 1, paragraph 0047, lines 1-2), comprising: a laser source (Paragraph 0047, line 4) configured to generate a laser beam (Paragraph 0047, line 6) of ultrashort laser pulses (Paragraph 0052, lines 5-9) to perform a surgery on an eye (Paragraph 0047, line 2); multi-focal optics (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0068, lines 4-6) 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) 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 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 (Paragraph 0047, lines 13-14) 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 (Paragraph 0047, line 7) 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 comprises 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. Palanker also does not teach that the surgery comprises hyperopia, myopia, or astigmatism correction of the eye.
Kondis, however teaches an optical system (Paragraph 0019, line 1) 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 incision pattern created by the laser beam is finely and precisely modulated, in order to provide the optimal surgical outcome to the patient, as recognized by Kondis.
Palanker does, however, teach the treatment of cataracts (Paragraph 0108, lines 13-14). It would be well known by a person of ordinary skill in the art that cataracts cause myopia, and thus Palanker discloses myopia correction. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that surgical correction of myopia, 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, such as hyperopia or astigmatism, in order to improve patient eyesight by correcting the refractive error.
Regarding claim 13, Palanker teaches 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) comprising a diffractive optical element (Paragraph 0068, lines 10-11) that multiplexes (Paragraph 0068, lines 6-7) the laser beam (Paragraph 0047, line 6) to yield the plurality of focus spots (Fig. 7D, paragraph 0068, lines 9-10) along the propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) ) of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 14, Palanker teaches 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) 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) along the propagation axis (Fig. 7A-7B, paragraph 0068, lines 7-8) of the laser beam.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Carl Layno can be reached at 571-272-4949. 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
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights