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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 12/1/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112a written description and 112b indefiniteness rejections, applicant’s amendments and related argument have been fully considered and are persuasive in overcoming these rejections. Therefore, these 112 rejections are hereby withdrawn.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant’s amendments and related arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has found a new prior art reference that explicitly teaches a controller that operates a shutter on a pulse-by-pulse basis. While the examiner maintains that the obvious to try rationale is still proper, the newly cited prior art reference explicitly teaches these 2 options, i.e. individually selecting the pulses on a pulse by pulse basis or selecting the pulses as a group, and therefore provides a finding of a recognized problem or need in the art. See new 103 rejection below, as well as the numerous prior art references cited as pertinent art in the conclusion section.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0188166 to Buck et al. in view of US 6,322,554 to Tomita in view of US 2002/0165525 to Nakamura in view of US 2011/0001950 to DeVoe and further in view of US 2014/0364840 to Donitzky et al. OR US 2019/0110926 to Malek Tabrizi et al.
[Claims 1, 4 and 10] A laser system comprising:
a laser (laser engine 200) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in pulses (“The laser engine 200 may be a regenerative femtosecond laser amplifier configured to provide a repetitively pulsed femtosecond laser beam collimated along a laser axis”; Par 0082);
and a laser shutter assembly (reconfigurable optical device/mirror 270) comprising a shutter and shutter motor (Par 0139 details that the repositioning of the mirror may be performed automatically. The examiner takes the position that the automatic repositioning of a mirror requires a motor. If applicant disagrees, see Tomita below);
a controller (Par 0139)
a laser energy control system configured to regulate an amount of electromagnetic energy of each laser pulse that exits the laser system (beam shaper module 300; Pars 0122 and 0130, specifically the discussion of “clip level”);
wherein the shutter comprises a mirror (mirror 270);
wherein the shutter motor is configured to move the shutter in an alternating manner between a first position in which electromagnetic radiation emitted by the laser is allowed to be output from the laser system and a second position in which electromagnetic radiation emitted by the laser is prevented from being output from the laser system (first position 71 and second position 72; Pars 0138-139; Fig. 19);
wherein the controller selectively allows the laser pulses to be output from the laser system by sending signals to the shutter motor driver to control moving the mirror between the first position and the second position (Par 0139; The examiner takes the position that this inherently requires sending signal to a shutter motor driver. However, if applicant disagrees, see Tomita below);
As discussed above, the examiner takes the position that Buck inherently teaches a motor and controller that sends signal to the motor driver, in order to automatically reposition the mirror. However, if applicant disagrees, Tomita, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a similar laser ophthalmic surgical device (Fig. 2) including a shutter (14) automatically controlled with a motor (43) and control unit (30) for driving the motor; Col 4, lines 59-62). Furthermore, Tomita discloses “numeral 43 is a motor connected to the shutter 14 for driving the shutter 14 to open or close. Numeral 44 is a driving circuit which is controlled in response to a control signal from the control unit 30 for driving the motor 43”. Therefore, in the situation where Buck does not inherently teach a motor, shutter motor driver and controller to automatically control the position of the mirror, then it would be obvious to modify the shutter/controller of Buck to include a motor, shutter motor driver and controller, as taught by Tomita, to automatically control the positioning, e.g. open/first or close/second, of the shutter, as this is a commonly known/used configuration to control the position of a shutter.
Buck and Tomita are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach that the reconfigurable/repositionable mirror (270) is rotated, i.e. the orientation of the mirror is changed, in order to position the mirror into and out of the beam path (50) of laser (200). However, in the same field of endeavor, Nakamura discloses a rotatable mirror (48, Fig. 2) that is controlled by a motor to be inserted into and removed from the optical path of the beam (Par 0033), by rotating the mirror from 45° (when located in the path) to 180° (when removed from the path). As can be seen in Fig. 2, when the mirror is located outside of the beam path, i.e. 180°, the mirror axis and the beam path are in a skew line relationship with each other, i.e. they do not intersect. See applicant’s Figs. 3 and 8 which show the shutter in the same skew line relationship. Therefore, it would have been obvious to substitute the linearly-moving shutter mirror (270, Fig. 19) of Buck for the rotating shutter mirror (48, Fig. 2) of Nakamura as a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results, as they both function to provide the same effect, i.e. allowing and blocking light based on the mirror positions.
Regarding the galvanometer motor, Nakamura discloses a motor that causes the mirror to rotate, but is silent as to the specific type of motor. The examiner takes official notice that a galvanometer motor is known and used in the art to rotate a mirror. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose/try any known/common type of motor to rotate the mirror, including a galvanometer.
Buck, Tomita and Nakamura are discussed above, but fail to teach the specifics of the laser energy control system. However, DeVoe discloses a similar laser system that includes a laser energy control system (power control 40) configured to regulate an amount of laser energy of each laser pulse that exits the laser beam (Pars 0087-93), comprising a waveplate (half-wave plate; HWP; 92, Fig. 6), waveplate motor (“high-speed galvanometer motor rotates the HWP”; Par 0091) and polarizer plate (polarizing beam splitter; PBS or polarizer; 93, Fig. 6). The waveplate motor is configured to function in the claimed manner, by controlling the rotation/angle of the half-wave plate; see at least Pars 0091-92 and MPEP 2114. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the laser energy control system of Buck with the laser energy control system of DeVoe, as a simple substitution of one known laser energy control system for another to obtain predictable results, i.e. regulate an amount of laser energy of each pulse that exits the laser beam.
Regarding the limitation “wherein movement of the mirror is on a pulse-by-pulse basis”, as discussed above, the examiner contends that Buck or the combination of Buck, Tomita, Nakamura teach all of the necessary structure related to a shutter mirror to be capable of functioning in the claimed manner, but these references fail to explicitly teach a controller that controls the shutter on a pulse-by-pulse basis. However, when considering that Buck discloses a pulsed laser, it stands to reason that there are only two ways in which the shutter can function: 1. pulse-by-pulse, i.e. each pulse individually, or 2. As a group/plurality of pulses. At least one of these options (if not both) are inherently taught by Buck. It is emphasized that applicant has provided no criticality or unexpected result to pulse-by-pulse control (in fact, applicant’s specification makes it clear that both are equal options). Therefore, it would be obvious to choose/try either option, including pulse-by-pulse control, as this is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success. Donitzky or Malek Tabrizi is brought in to further bolster the examiner’s position regarding obvious to try. Specifically, in the same field of endeavor, Donitzky discloses a similar laser ophthalmic treatment system that operates a shutter, i.e. controllable blanking unit, to “blank individual radiation pulses selectively, so that they do not reach the eye” (Par 0011). Donitzky makes it clear that this is done on a pulse-by-pulse basis, i.e. blanking of individual laser pulses (Par 0042), in order to precisely control which pulses create the desired effect/result in the tissue (Par 0011). Similarly, Malek Talbrizi discloses a similar laser ophthalmic treatment system that uses a shutter (AOM 15 or 17; Par 0077) to selectively control which pulses are emitted by the laser system on either a pulse-by-pulse basis, i.e. a single pulse, or a group/plurality of pulses, i.e. more than one pulse (Pars 0076-77). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller taught by Buck and/or Tomita to selectively control the shutter to output pulses on a pulse-by-pulse basis, as taught by Donitzky or Malek Talbrizi, as this is a known way to precisely control which pulses are output by the laser system and achieve the desired effect in tissue.
[Claim 3] As shown in Fig. 19 and disclosed in Pars 0138-139, the first position (71) is located in the path of laser (200) to direct the laser beam (50) to the eye (10), i.e. allowed to be output from the laser system, and the second position (72) is located out of the path of laser (200) so that laser beam (50) is directed to laser beam diagnostic (750), i.e. prevented from output from the laser system.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The concept of a controller that controls operation of a shutter on either a pulse by pulse basis, i.e. selection of individual or single pulses, or as a group of pulses is well established in the prior art:
US 2022/0202614 to Rathjen et al. (pulse picker 217; Par 0052)
US 2015/0230978 to Volger et al. (pulse selector 54; Par 0043)
US 2014/0058367 to Dantus (Par 0062)
US 2012/0136342 to Bischoff (pulse selecting/picking; Abstract, Pars 0013-16)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights