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
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pg. 7-8, filed 09/26/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the argument that the SLO device and OCT device in Katchinskiy (US 2023/0372153) do not appear to use the same scanning system and light detector (see Office Action Appendix filed 09/26/2025, pg. 4). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moriguchi (US 2022/0175246). See rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katchinskiy et al. (US 2023/0372153) in view of Moriguchi (US 2022/0175246).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Katchinskiy discloses an ophthalmic laser surgical system and method for imaging and treating a target in an eye (Abstract; Figs. 1-5), comprising: an imaging system configured to direct a plurality of imaging beams into the eye to generate a plurality of images of the target within the eye, the plurality of imaging beams comprising a scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) imaging beam and an optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging beam (Fig. 2, SLO source 202 and OCT source 204 provide claimed imaging beams), the eye having an eye axis, the eye axis defining a z-axis, the z-axis defining a plurality of xy-planes orthogonal to the z-axis (eye 112 has a z-axis along the depth of the eye defining a plurality of xy-planes), the imaging system comprising: an SLO device (Fig. 3, which depicts SLO components of ophthalmological system; para. 42) comprising: a scanning system configured to scan the SLO imaging beam within the eye (Fig. 3, XY scanning optics 304); a light detector configured to generate an SLO signal in response to detecting the SLO imaging beam reflected from the eye; and an SLO detector configured to generate a plurality of SLO images from the SLO signal (para. 65: “Reflected light from the eye returns through the same optical path to the beam splitter 302, which splits the returning light from the light of the source and directs the returning light to the SLO detector, which is depicted as an avalanche photodetector (APD) 310”, i.e., beam splitter 302 acts as light detector and APD 310 acts as SLO detector); and an OCT device (Fig. 4, which depicts OCT components of ophthalmological system; para. 43) comprising: a separate scanning system configured to scan the OCT imaging beam within the eye (Fig. 4, scanning optics 406); a separate light detector configured to generate an OCT signal in response to detecting the OCT imaging beam reflected from the eye (Fig. 4, fiber coupler 402, which acts as beam splitter, see para. 68); and an OCT detector configured to generate a plurality of OCT images from the OCT signal (Fig. 4, OCT detector 220); and a treatment system comprising a laser device, the laser device configured to direct a laser beam towards the target within the eye (Fig. 2, treatment laser source 206; Fig. 5, which depicts treatment laser portion of ophthalmological system); and a computer configured to: instruct the imaging system to generate the plurality of images; and instruct the laser device to direct the laser beam towards the target (Fig. 2, device controller 110 & computing device 114).
Katchinskiy does not disclose the SLO device and OCT device use the same scanning system and light detector.
Moriguchi, however, teaches an ophthalmic apparatus (Abstract; Figs. 1-2) including an SLO device (Fig. 2) comprising: a scanning system configured to scan the SLO imaging beam within the eye (Fig. 2, scan optical system SC); a light detector configured to generate an SLO signal in response to detecting the SLO imaging beam reflected from the eye (detector DE); and an SLO detector configured to generate a plurality of SLO images from the SLO signal (SLO image forming unit 210); and an OCT device (Fig. 2) comprising: the scanning system configured to scan the OCT imaging beam within the eye (SC); the light detector configured to generate an OCT signal in response to detecting the OCT imaging beam reflected from the eye (DE); and an OCT detector configured to generate a plurality of OCT images from the OCT signal (OCT image forming unit 220; see also para. 88-90). Moriguchi further teaches that this allows to acquire SLO signals (or SLO images) and OCT signals (or OCT images) of the predetermined site of the subject's eye, while sharing the light source, the optical scanner, and the detector. In particular, by sharing the light source and the optical scanner, the SLO signals and the OCT signals, or the SLO image and the OCT image can be aligned with high accuracy (para. 59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Katchinskiy such that the SLO device and OCT device use the same scanning system and light detector. Making this modification would be useful for aligning SLO image and OCT image with high accuracy, as taught by Moriguchi.
Regarding claim 2, Katchinskiy discloses an imaging beam source configured to generate the plurality of imaging beams comprising the SLO imaging beam and the OCT imaging beam (SLO source 202 and OCT source 204 together provide claimed imaging beam source).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Katchinskiy discloses the computer configured to: instruct the OCT device to scan the OCT imaging beam in a z-direction relative to the z- axis (para. 68: “the telescope lenses 216 may be moved toward or away from the eye 112, defined as the Z-axis, in order to change a focus point of the OCT source beam on the eye”) to generate an A-scan within the eye (para. 115 discloses generating A-scan from OCT images); and instruct the SLO device to scan the SLO imaging beam in an xy-direction relative to the xy-planes to generate a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) enface images (para. 32 discloses capturing multiple SLO images, requiring use of XY scanning optics 304 to do so).
Regarding claims 4 and 17, Katchinskiy discloses the scanning system comprising: an xy-scanner configured to scan an imaging beam in an xy-direction relative to an xy- plane within the eye (Fig. 3, XY scanning optics 304); and a z-scanner configured to scan the imaging beam in a z-direction relative to the z-axis within the eye (Fig. 3, telescope lens 216; para. 64: “The telescope optics 216 may include one or more lenses capable of moving along a Z-axis, which beings the lenses away from or towards the eye. Moving the optics along the Z-axis can change the focus to different parts of the eye such as the cornea or the retina or anywhere inside the eye's internal compartments”).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Katchinskiy discloses the xy-scanner configured to: direct the imaging beams along an imaging beam path towards an xy-location of the target (Fig. 3, XY scanning optics 304 for directing SLO imaging beams towards focus in eye 112); and direct the laser beam along a laser beam path aligned with the imaging beam path towards the xy-location of the target (Fig. 5, targeting optics 506; para. 72: “The targeting optics 506 may be similar to the scanning optics described above for the SLO and OCT optical paths”).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, Katchinskiy discloses the z-scanner configured to: direct the imaging beams along an imaging beam path towards a z-location of the target; and direct the laser beam along a laser beam path aligned with the imaging beam path towards the z-location of the target (Fig. 2, telescope lens 216; para. 64: “The telescope optics 216 may include one or more lenses capable of moving along a Z-axis, which beings the lenses away from or towards the eye. Moving the optics along the Z-axis can change the focus to different parts of the eye such as the cornea or the retina or anywhere inside the eye's internal compartments”).
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Katchinskiy in view of Horvath et al. (US 2016/0045367) (hereinafter Horvath).
Regarding claims 10-11, Katchinskiy does not disclose the OCT device configured to receive a z-location of the target relative to the z-axis; the laser device configured to: receive a z-location of the target from the imaging system. Katchinkskiy does disclose directing the laser beam towards a z-location of the target via the telescoping lens 216, see also para. 64.
Horvath, however, teaches a laser system for eye surgery (Abstract) wherein a Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) or another depth sensing system measures and aligns the delivery system in the z-axis to the intended target depth plan of the eye. The operator sets a desired cutting diameter and then enables the treatment/cutting laser. The control system activates the laser and scanning system, keeps the delivery system aligned in the x-y axis through tracking during the procedure as well as in the z-axis through OCT/depth sensing during the procedure, thereby guiding the laser at all times during the procedure (para. 101).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Katchinskiy such that the OCT device configured to receive a z-location of the target relative to the z-axis; the laser device configured to: receive a z-location of the target from the imaging system. Making this modification would be useful for guiding the laser at all times during the procedure, as taught by Horvath.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Katchinskiy in view of Blumenkranz et al. (WO 2006/074469) (hereinafter Blumenkranz).
Regarding claim 12, Katchinskiy does not disclose the computer configured to: determine a radiant exposure at a retina of the eye resulting from the laser beam directed to a z-location of the target; and determine whether the radiant exposure is less than a maximum radiant exposure.
Blumenkranz, however, teaches an ophthalmological laser system (Abstract) and that to avoid retinal damage due to explosive vaporization of melanosomes following absorption of the short laser pulse the laser radiant exposure on the RPE should not exceed 100 mJ/cm2 (pg. 21, para. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Katchinskiy such that the computer configured to: determine a radiant exposure at a retina of the eye resulting from the laser beam directed to a z-location of the target; and determine whether the radiant exposure is less than a maximum radiant exposure. Making this modification would be useful for avoiding retinal damage, as taught by Blumenkranz.
Claim(s) 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Katchinskiy in view of Humayun et al. (WO 2012/149480) (hereinafter Humayun), further in view of Freedman (US 6454761).
Regarding claims 13-14, Katchinskiy does not disclose the SLO device configured to generate a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) enface images, each enface image located in a different xy-plane; and the computer configured to combine the plurality of 2D enface images to yield one or more three-dimensional (3D) images; the computer further configured to output the 3D images via display.
Humayun, however, teaches systems for in vivo images of cells (Abstract) wherein in an embodiment the system utilizes a SLO (scanning laser ophthalmoscope) imaging system to visualize the tissues within the eye. In general, SLO imaging allows for images of the eye to be taken in an x-y direction at various z depths. Accordingly, in order to obtain as three-dimensional image of the eye, the system can be configured to obtain multiple x-y images of the eye at different focal depths along the z axis. At block 912, the system can be configured to stitch together or combine the plurality of images taken using the SLO imaging system (para. 116).
Furthermore, Freedman teaches a laser surgery device (Abstract) wherein processor 48 can construct a virtual or real time display three dimensional image of the cornea film and construct an ablating plan by comparing the constructed image to a representation of a standard of improved acuity. Processor 48 controls ablating laser 52 in accordance with the ablating plan (Col. 5, ll. 29-36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Katchinskiy such that the SLO device configured to generate a plurality of two-dimensional (2D) enface images, each enface image located in a different xy-plane; and the computer configured to combine the plurality of 2D enface images to yield one or more three-dimensional (3D) images; the computer further configured to output the 3D images via display. Making this modification would be useful for obtaining three-dimensional image of the eye, as taught by Humayun, and constructing an ablation plan, as taught by Freedman.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Van de Velde (US 2010/0290007) discloses an electronic othalmoscope for selective retinal photodisruption (Abstract) including SLO, OCT, and treatment laser beam (Fig. 10).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Anant A Gupta whose telephone number is (571)272-8088. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 pm ET.
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.
/A.A.G./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792