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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 2/3/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amended claims filed 2/3/26 have been considered as follows.
35 USC 112 Rejections of the claims:
The rejections are withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
35 USC 102/103 Rejections of the claims:
Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new ground rejections for claim 6 based on modified interpretation of the prior art teaching.
Applicant argues the rejections for claims 12 and 27 should be withdrawn because Obrebski does not teach a spatial light modulator.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out, Obrebski teaches a spatial light modulator ([61], “an LCD device or a DMD device”). The function of 41i (with related optics as shown in Fig. 15) mentioned in [90] is to be understood as an equivalent or placeholder for 79 (with related optics in Fig. 6) when the entire disclosure by Obrebski is evaluated as a whole (it is understood a mirror in the optical path can be replaced by a DMD device to scan or adjust beam, [61], “a DMD device in order to adjust the color and intensity of the beam 45b. It is also possible to form the beam of standard illumination light such that substantially no light intensity enters the pupil of the eye”). Further as pointed out by Applicant, the position is adjusted repetitively, which implies/indicates one knows the next position is coming after the current position, functioning as a predictor for predicting the time. Applicant seems to argue the exact timing separation between two positions are not taught by Obrebski, which is moot since “exact timing separation” is not part of the claim language.
Therefore Examiner maintains the rejections for claims 12 and 27.
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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 6,12,27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrebski (US 20040227989, of record).
PNG
media_image1.png
706
520
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Obrebski teaches (Figs. 1-17, e.g., Figs. 6,17, [56-]) An ophthalmologic microscope comprising
i) an illumination device generating illumination pulses (35a, [99-100], “illumination pulses”) and having
a) at least one light source (76),
b) an electronically controlled spatial light modulator comprising a two-dimensional array of micro-mirrors ([61], “an LCD device or a DMD device”) individually deflectable into a first and a second position (79 Fig. 6, 41b in Fig. 7), and
c) illumination imaging optics (35a),
ii) a microscope device (Fig. 6) having
a) microscope optics (for beam 20a) and
b) at least one electronic camera (67a), and
iii) a control unit (61a),
wherein said camera has a frame signal output carrying a signal indicative of times when the camera records a frame (e.g., [97], “images”) and
wherein said control unit is structured to
-synchronize said illumination device to said frame signal output (e.g., [100], “synchronized”) and
-synchronize a state of said micromirrors to said frame signal output ([100], “the illumination pulses are synchronized with the integration times of the cameras 167 ...”), and
-bring, for a group of no more than N consecutive frame cycles of said camera, each micro-mirror of said spatial light modulator into the first position during a time t1 and into the second position during a time t2 ([61-62], “...adjust color and intensity...”, “...displace the mirror continuously...”, [90], “...scan... At first...position...visible in the image... Then ... until... image...”, it is understood by Examiner 79 in Fig. 6 performs similar functions as 99 in Fig. 15), wherein N≤100.
Obrebski does not explicitly teach 0.1<t1/t2<10.
Absent any showing of criticality and/or unpredictability, having 0.1<t1/t2<10 would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purposes of standardizing surgery procedure (there are two or more positions during the adjustment of illumination in the teaching of Obrebski, it is more likely than not that t1 and t2 will be similar to each other for at least two positions since each image requires similar efforts).
Accordingly, 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 teaching of Obrebski by having 0.1<t1/t2<10 for the purposes of standardizing surgery procedure.
Regarding claim 12, Obrebski teaches (Figs. 1-17, e.g., Figs. 6,17, [56-]) An ophthalmologic microscope comprising
i) an illumination device generating illumination pulses (35a, [99-100], “illumination pulses”) and having
a) at least one light source (76),
b) a spatial light modulator (79 Fig. 6, 41b in Fig. 7), and
c) illumination imaging optics (35a),
ii) a microscope device (Fig. 6) having
a) microscope optics (for beam 20a) and
b) at least one electronic camera (67a), and
iii) a control unit (61a),
wherein said camera has a frame signal output carrying a signal indicative of times when the camera records a frame (e.g., [97], “images”) and
wherein said control unit is structured for
-synchronizing said illumination device to said frame signal output (e.g., [100], “synchronized”),
-predicting a time when said camera will record a next frame depending on the time when the camera recorded at least one previous frame, and
-preparing at least part of said illumination device before the predicted time for recording the next frame ([90], “the controller 61i adjusts the position of the mirror 41i via an actuator 125 such that a visible shadow border is visible in the image...”, it appears the camera operates continuously, and the images are used to provide feedback for the adjustment, so next frame recording depends on previous frames).
Regarding claim 27, mutatis mutandis, the modified Obrebski teaches all the limitations as stated in claim 12 rejections above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 3-5,7-8,13,15,18-23,28,30-31 are allowed. The reasons for allowable subject matter are provided in the office action dated 11/3//25.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WEN HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-0234. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9:00AM-4:00PM.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/WEN HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
wen.huang2@uspto.gov
(571)270-0234
Prosecution Insights