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 .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10/30/2025 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. A new rejection is made in view of Friedman (US 20110196350 A1).
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.
2. Claim(s) 1-7,9-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qaisi (US 20210186753 A1) in view of Semac (US 20160270656 A1) and in further view of Friedman (US 20110196350 A1).
In regards to claims 1 and 15, Al-Qaisi teaches an ophthalmic laser system (Abstract), comprising:
a laser device configured to direct a plurality of laser pulses towards a target within an eye (Par. 0053 teaches applying laser pulses at a target), an axis of the eye defining a z-axis, the z-axis defining an xy-plane orthogonal to the z-axis, the xy-plane defining a target xy-plane where the target is located, the target having a dimension in the target xy-plane (Par. 0056 teach the pulses being applied at different planes to reach the target), the laser device comprising:
a laser configured to generate a laser beam (Par. 0055 teaches a laser system [341] emitting a laser beam [342]); and
an ophthalmic microscope configured to gather light reflected from within the eye to yield an image of the eye (Par. 0027 teaches the system having a visualization system with microscopes to image the eye and); and
a controller (Par. 0049) configured to: instruct the laser device to direct the plurality of laser pulses towards the target to yield the pulse pattern of laser pulses (Par. 0049 teaches the system comprise a laser control device [143] to control the beam).
While Al-Qaisi teaches using spatial light modulators, i.e. multiplexors, they do not explicitly teach that these are used to direct the laser beam (but rather used to direct the light beam). However, in the same field of endeavor, Samec teaches a laser system used to target the eye (Par. 2007) wherein spatial light modulators are employed (Par. 2007) in order to steer the laser beam and/or to vary the depth at which the beam is focused within the user's eye.
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 Al-Qaisi and modified them by having SLMs direct the laser beams, as taught and suggested by Semac, in order to steer the beam and/or to vary the depth at which the beam is focused within the user's eye (Par. 2007 of Semac).
While the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi and Semac teach directing the beam via a multiplexor to the eye, they do not disclose wherein a first pulse pattern and a second pulse pattern are yielded, the first pulse pattern having a first coverage (which can be greater or lesser than the second coverage) and a first density that are different than a second coverage and a second density of the second pulse pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Friedman discloses an ophthalmic laser system (Abstract) that directs a beam into pulse patterns, one having a higher pulse energy and different depths than the other (Par. 0007-0008 and 0088) in order to remove targets without fragmentation (Par. 0003-0004).
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 Al-Qaisi and Semac and modified them by having the system use differing pulse patterns, as taught and suggested by Friedman, in order to remove targets without fragmentation (Par. 0003-0004 of Friedman).
In regards to claim 2, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, the target comprising an eye floater (Abstract and Par. 0001 of Al-Qaisi).
In regards to claims 3 and 4, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, the one or more laser beam multiplexers comprising: a first multiplexer configured to yield a first pulse pattern; and a second multiplexer configured to yield the second pulse pattern and a controller to choose between the first and second multiplexor (Par. 1944-1955 or Semac teach having multiple SLMs inside of the scanning device and that the scanning device can produce different scan patterns (see claim 1 rejection) and Par. 0007-0008 of Friedman teaches a first and second pulse pattern (see claim 1 rejection). Al-Qaisi teaches using a controller to control the system, therefore it would be capable of picking between the SLMs).
In regards to claims 5 and 6, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 3: the first pulse pattern providing smaller coverage; and the second pulse pattern providing larger coverage and the first pulse pattern providing sparser coverage; and the second pulse pattern providing denser coverage (Par. 0007-0008 of Friedman – see claim 1 rejection above)
In regards to claim 7, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, the one or more laser beam multiplexers comprising a spatial light modulator (Par. 1944-1955 of Semac teach a having multiple SLMs inside of the scanning device (see claim 1 rejection)).
In regards to claims 9 and 10, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 7: the first pulse pattern providing smaller coverage; and the second pulse pattern providing larger coverage and the first pulse pattern providing sparser coverage; and the second pulse pattern providing denser coverage ((Par. 0007-0008 of Friedman – see claim 1 rejection above)
In regards to claim 11, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, the controller further configured to determine the dimension of the target from user input (Par. 0047 of Al-Qaisi teaches determining the depth of the opacity/floater; i.e. the dimension).
In regards to claim 12, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, the controller further configured to determine the dimension of the target by performing image processing on the image of the eye to measure the dimension (Par. 0047 of Al-Qaisi teaches taking several depth scans to determine the dimension of the opacity).
In regards to claim 13, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, the controller further configured to: select the pulse pattern of laser pulses in accordance with the dimension of the target (Par. 0047, 0056, and Claim 1 of Al-Qaisi teach taking the depth scans of the opacity and then applying the laser beam based on these scans/based on the dimension of the opacity).
In regards to claim 14, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim I, a laser beam multiplexer of the one or more laser beam multiplexers comprising one of the following: a diffractive optical element (DOE), a diffraction grating, a holographic optical element (HOE), an interferometer, a spatial light modulator (SLM), a polarization multiplexer, or any combination of the preceding (Par. 0056 of Al-Qaisi teaches using a spatial light modulator (SLM)).
In regards to claims 16-18, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi, Semac, and Friedman teach the method of Claim 15, the one or more laser beam multiplexers comprising: a first multiplexer configured to yield a first pulse pattern; and a second multiplexer configured to yield a second pulse pattern and instructing, by the controller, the laser device to use the first multiplexer or the second multiplexer. (Par. 1944-1955 or Semac teach having multiple SLMs – see claim 1/15 rejection. Par. 0007-0008 of Friedman teaches having different pulse patterns – see claim 1/15 rejection above). Al-Qaisi teaches using a controller to control the system, therefore it would be capable of picking between the SLMs).
In regards to claim 20, Al-Qaisi teaches an ophthalmic laser system (Abstract), comprising:
a laser device configured to direct a plurality of laser pulses towards a target within an eye (Par. 0055), the target comprising an eye floater (Par. 0001), an axis of the eye defining a z-axis, the z-axis defining an xy- plane orthogonal to the z-axis, the xy-plane defining a target xy-plane where the target is located, the target having a dimension in the target xy-plane (Par. 0056 teach the pulses being applied at different planes to reach the target),
the laser device comprising:
a laser configured to generate a laser beam (Par. 0055 teaches a laser system [341] emitting a laser beam [342]); and
an ophthalmic microscope configured to gather light reflected from within the eye to yield an image of the eye (Par. 0027 teaches the system having a visualization system with microscopes to image the eye and); and
a controller (Par. 0049) configured to: instruct the laser device to direct the plurality of laser pulses towards the target to yield the pulse pattern of laser pulses (Par. 0049 teaches the system comprise a laser control device [143] to control the beam).
While Al-Qaisi teaches using spatial light modulators, i.e. multiplexors, they do not explicitly teach that these are used to direct the laser beam (but rather used to direct the light beam). However, in the same field of endeavor, Samec teaches one or more laser beam multiplexers (Par. 1944-1955), each laser beam multiplexer configured to modulate the laser beam to yield a pulse pattern of laser pulses in the target xy-plane, the pulse pattern having a coverage related to the dimension of the target to limit movement of the target, the one or more laser beam multiplexers comprising a first multiplexer, or a spatial light modulator (Par. 1944-1955 or Semac teach having multiple SLMs inside of the scanning device. Semac and Al-Qaisi both teach using a controller to control the system (both of the systems having SLMs), therefore it would be capable of picking between the SLMs), a laser beam multiplexer of the one or more laser beam multiplexers comprising one of the following: a diffractive optical element (DOE), a diffraction grating, a holographic optical element (HOE), an interferometer, a spatial light modulator (SLM), a polarization multiplexer, or any combination of the preceding (Par. 1944 teaches the multiplexor being a spatial light modulator).
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 Al-Qaisi and modified them by having SLMs direct the laser beams, as taught and suggested by Semac, in order to steer the beam and/or to vary the depth at which the beam is focused within the user's eye (Par. 2007 of Semac).
The combined teachings of Al-Qaisi and Semac do not disclose the system configured to create the first pulse pattern or the second pulse pattern, the first pulse pattern providing smaller coverage and the second pulse pattern providing larger coverage, the first pulse pattern providing sparser coverage and the second pulse pattern providing denser coverage.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Friedman discloses an ophthalmic laser system (Abstract) that directs a beam into pulse patterns, one having a higher pulse energy and different depths than the other (Par. 0007-0008 and 0088) in order to remove targets without fragmentation (Par. 0003-0004).
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 Al-Qaisi and Semac and modified them by having the system use differing pulse patterns, as taught and suggested by Friedman, in order to remove targets without fragmentation (Par. 0003-0004 of Friedman).
In regards to claim 21, the combined teachings of Al-Qaisi and Semac teach the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 20, the controller further configured to:
determine the dimension of the target from user input or by performing image processing on the image of the eye to measure the dimension; select the pulse pattern of laser pulses in accordance with the dimension of the target; and instruct the laser device to use the first multiplexer or the second multiplexer or instruct the spatial light modulator to create the first pulse pattern or the second pulse pattern ((Par. 0047, 0056, and Claim 1 of Al-Qaisi teach taking the depth scans of the opacity and then applying the laser beam based on these scans/based on the dimension of the opacity).
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 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 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 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.
/S.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792