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 .
Election/Restrictions
1. Claims 19-21, 26, 28, 32, 41, and 42 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected subject matter, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant’s election of claims 14-18, 22-25, and 38-40 in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claim(s) 14, 15, 17, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin (US 20160213517 A1).
In regards to claim 14, Martin discloses a focusing optical unit for a UV laser-based system for vision correction (UVL-LVC system) (Abstract and Par 0002 teaches a UV laser system with a focusing system to correct vision disorders),
the UVL-LVC system having a UV laser source that provides laser radiation (Par. 0002 teaches using a UV laser as the laser radiation means); and
a scanning system that laterally scans the laser radiation in x- and y-directions (Par. 026 teaches a scanning device that can scan in the x-y direction):
wherein the focusing optical unit is configured to focus the laser radiation in a focal field (Par. 0028 discloses a focusing objective to focus the laser beam); and
wherein the focusing optical unit comprises a first lens arrangement which is configured to provide a convergent focal field (Par. 0025 teaches the focusing objective can be lenses, including a convex lens, i.e. a converging lens).
In regards to claim 15, Martin discloses the focusing optical unit as claimed in claim 14, wherein the scanning system that laterally scans the laser radiation in the x- and y-directions also scans the laser radiation in a z-direction (Par. 0026 teaches scanning the both the x-y and z directions).
In regards to claim 17, Martin discloses the focusing optical unit as claimed in claim 14, wherein each location in the convergent focal field has a local center of curvature on a side facing away from the focusing optical unit (Par. 0016 discloses the focus is effected in a direction away from the center).
In regards to claim 25, Martin discloses the focusing optical unit as claimed in claim 14, wherein the focusing optical unit has at least two lens groups along a beam path with a non-imaging optical element being arranged therebetween (Par. 0025 teaches using convex and concave lenses).
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.
3. Claim(s) 16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin (US 20160213517 A1).
In regards to claim 16 and 18, Martin discloses the focusing optical unit as claimed in claim 14, wherein the convergent focal field has a focal field diameter selected from a group consisting of at least 6 mm, at least 8 mm and at least 10 mm and a focal field radius RS ranging from 8 mm to 50 mm, from 10 mm to 30 mm and from 12 mm to 20 mm (Par. 0024 teaches the focal diameter being 5um. The Applicant’s specification indicates that using these claimed ranges allows for average vision correction and since the art of Martin still corrects vision using this 5um range, it would be a matter of discovering the optimum or workable ranges).
Martin discloses the claimed invention except for the range being in a group of either at least 6um or 8um or 10um. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the listed focal diameter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
4. Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Huang (US 20140180265 A1).
In regards to claim 22, Martin discloses the focusing optical unit as claimed in claim 14, except for the unit configured to have a working distance (A) in a range from 20 mm to 50 mm and an optical aperture selected from a group consisting of greater than 40 mm, greater than 50 mm, and greater than or equal to 60 mm, or a combination of the foregoing.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Huang discloses a system for vision correction using UV lasers (Abstract and Par. 0003 and 0018) wherein the system has a set focusing distance and a high numerical aperture (Par. 0018 and 0007) in order to eliminate the need for compensating optics as well as reducing the required energy.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have taken the teachings of Martin and modified them to have a particular focusing distance and to create an aperture, as taught and suggested by Huang, in order to eliminate the need for compensating optics as well as reducing the required energy (Par. 0007 and 0018 of Huang).
The combined teachings of Martin and Huang discloses the claimed invention except for distance (A) in a range from 20 mm to 50 mm and an optical aperture selected from a group consisting of greater than 40 mm, greater than 50 mm, and greater than or equal to 60 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the listed focusing distance and aperture range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
5. Claim(s) 23 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Perricone (US 20170219849 A1).
In regards to claim 23, Martin discloses the focusing optical unit as claimed in claim 14, comprising a first lens which has a first lens material with a first refractive index, comprising a second lens which has a second lens material with a second refractive index, with the first refractive index differing from the second refractive index (Par. 0025 teaches using a convex and concave lens having a positive and negative refractive index, thus being different from one another).
Martin does not disclose the system having lens’ with first and second Abbe numbers, differing from one another. However, in the same field of endeavor, Perricone, teaches a system for laser protected lens (Abstract) wherein there are two lens’ with different Abbe numbers (Par. 0046) in order to disperse the laser to spread it onto the areas of the eye that are being targeted (Par. 0046).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have taken the teachings of Martin and modified them to have lenes with differed Abbe numbers, as taught and suggested by Perricone, in order to disperse the laser to spread it onto the areas of the eye that are being targeted (Par. 0046 of Perricone).
In regards to claim 24, the combined teachings of Martin in view of Perricone disclose the focusing optical unit as claimed in claim 23, wherein the first lens has a negative optical power, the second lens has a positive optical power and the first refractive index is greater than the second refractive index (Par. 0025 of Martin teaches the concave lens having a negative refractive power and the convex lens having a positive refractive power).
6. Claim(s) 38 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin in view of Wittnebel (US 20190110921 A1)
In regards to claim 38, Wittnebel discloses a UV laser-based system for vision correction (UVL-LVC system) (Abstract and Par. 0002), comprising a focusing optical unit for a UV laser-based system for vision correction (UVL-LVC system) as claimed in claim 14 (See claim 14 rejection).
Martin does not disclose the unit comprising a planning unit for generating planning data for a UV laser-based system for vision correction (UVL-LVC system) comprising: a control unit that controls the UVL-LVC system that is configured to take planning data into consideration; wherein the planning unit is configured to take account of: geometry losses, Fresnel losses, a spatial extent of the laser radiation in the work surface or a combination of the foregoing when calculating the planning data; and wherein the planning unit has an interface operably coupled to the control unit, by which the planning data can be made available to the control unit.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Wittnebel dislcoses a UV laser system for vision correction (Par. 0033 and 0046), wherein the system can generate treatment plans using a controller wherein when making the plan, the location information is used, i.e. spatial extent, and displayed (Par. 0040-0041, 0043, and 0049) in order to optimize treatment time while still avoiding undesired thermal loading of cornea (Par. 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have taken the teachings of Martin and modified them to have a planning and control system, as taught and suggested by Wittnebel, in order to optimize treatment time while still avoiding undesired thermal loading of cornea (Par. 0044 of Wittnebel).
In regards to claim 38, the combined teachings of Martin and Wittnebel discloses the focusing optical unit as claimed in claim 14, wherein the focusing optical unit is configured to produce round laser spots having a full width at half maximum (FWHM) in a range from 0.3 to 0.8 mm in the focal field with a deviation chosen from a group consisting of less than 20% and less than 10% (Par. 0026 teaches focusing the laser beam to the eye) and wherein the first lens arrangement which is configured to provide a convergent focal field is further configured to take into account a difference radius of curvature (RA) which represents an effective corneal curvature having effective corneal curvature values ranging from RA of 15 mm to RA of 450 mm for focal field radii of curvature of between 8 mm and 16 mm thereby facilitating an improved fluence loss function (Par. 0024 teaches the focal diameter being 5um. The Applicant’s specification indicates that using these claimed ranges allows for average vision correction and since the art of Martin still corrects vision using this 5um range, it would be a matter of discovering the optimum or workable ranges).
Martin discloses the claimed invention except for the spots being in a range from 0.3 to 0.8 mm in the focal field with a deviation chosen from a group consisting of less than 20% and less than 10% and the corneal curvature values ranging from RA of 15 mm to RA of 450 mm for focal field radii of curvature of between 8 mm and 16 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the listed focal diameter, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
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