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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-18 are currently pending and under examination. As per the amendments filed on 10/30/2025, claim 1 is amended and claim 18 is newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7 (Double Patenting), filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the double patenting rejections of claims 1, 3, 9, and 11 have been fully considered. The double patenting rejections will be held in abeyance where Applicant will consider filing a terminal disclaimer if deemed necessary by the examiner upon allowance.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 7-9, (Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103), filed 10/30/2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. Regarding amended claim 1 (where limitations similar to those in unamended independent claim 9 are added), Applicant argues:
Applicant submits that Tassignon in view of Huang does not disclose all of the features of currently amended claim 1. For example, Tassignon in view of Huang does not disclose "adjust a position of a focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole of the confocal filter to generate an image of the floater," and "determine a z-location of the floater relative to the retina according to the position of the focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole."
Tassignon generally discloses an electronic ophthalmoscope that combines scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) and optical coherence tomography (OCT) with a pulsed laser source for administering selective retinal photodisruption/ablation laser therapy to the retina of the eye. See [0003]. In particular, Tassignon discloses that images of the retina are acquired via SLO imaging, a Badal focusing unit, an auxiliary OCT channel or probe is implemented to assist in positioning a therapeutic laser beam in depth along the z-axis. See [0021], [0025], [0036], and [0037] and Figs. 10-12. Tassignon further discloses an embodiment that implements "a confocal gate (SLO) depth of focus," where a "virtual location of a relaxed confocal aperture 52 of about 100 mu diameter is indicated at the waist level of a focused laser beam of 800 to 1000 nm wavelength." See, [0028].
Notably, Tassignon fails to disclose any techniques that include "adjust[ing] a position of
a focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole of the confocal filter to generate an image of the floater," or "determin[ing] a z-location of the floater relative to the retina according to the position of the focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole." Instead, as described above, Tassignon discloses that OCT is implemented to determine positions along the z-axis. See [0021] and [0025]. Further, although Tassignon briefly references "relaxed confocal scanning" (see, e.g., [0006] and [0028]), the reference is entirely silent regarding a position of a focal point of a lens included in a confocal filter being adjusted relative to a pinhole, as now required by amended claim 1. Instead, the lens implemented in the relaxed scanning confocal configuration of Tassignon appears to be fixed, with depth adjustments for imaging being performed via a Badal focusing unit. See [0021], [0025], [0036], and [0037] and Figs. 10-12.
(pages 8-9, 10/30/2025 Remarks)
This argument is persuasive. Based on Applicant’s arguments, the "adjust[ing] a position of
a focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole of the confocal filter to generate an image of the floater" would be understood as changes in physical distance between the lens and pinhole aperture along the optical axis to place the lens’ focal spot within the pinhole aperture. The limitation “determin[ing] a z-location of the floater relative to the retina according to the position of the focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole” would be understood as a z-location being related to the relative position of the lens needed to align with the pinhole aperture.
Tassingnon discloses the use of confocal SLO in [0006], [0028], [0037], [0060], [0115], and [0148]. Confocal microscopy uses a pinhole to eliminate the out of focus signal. Tassignon also discloses: “The therapeutic channel uses an independent x/y positioner and micro-deflector (AOD or galvanometer based) for the angular deflections of the flying beam in a predetermined pattern in the focal plane of the laser. A Badal or equivalent focusing mechanism adjusts repeatedly the depth of focus of consecutive layers” ([0139]). In this sense, a lens, such as a lens used in US 6789900 (Van de Velde: Col 12, Lines 66-67 and Col 13, lines 1-11), could alternatively serve as a focusing unit. While changing the positional relationship between the pinhole and focusing lens would be considered a standard feature of confocal microscopy, the Examiner notes the link between using confocal SLO and finding the depth or z-location is not clearly established in Tassingnon given the use of a combined SLO/OCT system. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1-17 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gramatikov (NPL, “Modern Technologies for Retinal Scanning and Imaging: an Introduction for the Biomedical Engineer”), see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103.”
Regarding independent claims 1 and 9, Applicant argues:
Huang has been cited as generally disclosing implementing SLO to detect floater shadows. See Office Action at p. 10. However, like Tassignon, Huang fails to disclose "adjust[ing] a position of a focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole of the confocal filter to generate an image of the floater," or "determin[ing] a z-location of the floater relative to the retina according to the position of the focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole," as recited in amended claim 1. In view of the above statements, the Tassignon and Huang references, either alone or in combination, fail to disclose all of the features of amended claim 1. Further, the remaining cited art does not cure the deficiencies of Tassignon and Huang discussed above, nor is the remaining cited art used in such a manner. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is in condition for allowance. Claim 9 recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore also in condition for allowance. The remaining claims are dependent on one of the independent claims and are therefore allowable at least based on their dependency. (page 9, 10/30/2025 Remarks)
This argument is persuasive as Huang does not correct the deficiencies earlier identified in the Examiner’s analysis of Applicant’s arguments.
Newly added claim 18 is evaluated in light of the above arguments and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section).
Summary: The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1-17 are withdrawn. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1-17 in view of Gramatikov (NPL, “Modern technologies for retinal scanning and
imaging: an introduction for the biomedical engineer) are added (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”). Newly added claim 18 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 and 3 are provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim of copending Application No. 18/296,647 (hereinafter ‘647) in view of Tassignon (US PG Pub 2016/0074221 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”). At the time applicant made the design, it would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary skill in the art to use a fast photodiode as a detector as demonstrated by Tassignon. The 04/06/2023 claim set in copending Application No. 18/296,647 is referenced in this double patenting rejection. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
With regards to claim 1 of the instant application, claim 7 of ‘647 discloses:
An ophthalmic laser surgical system for treating a floater in an eye (claim 1, line 1), comprising:
• a scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) device comprising detector and a confocal filter (claim 1, lines 6 and 12-13 – pinhole filter and lens elements), the confocal filter comprising a lens (claim 1, lines 12-13) and a pinhole (claim 1, line 6), the SLO device configured to:
direct an SLO beam along an SLO beam path towards a retina of the eye (claim 7, line 2-3);
receive the SLO beam reflected from the eye using the detector (claim 7, line 2);
generate an image from the reflected SLO beam (claim 7, line 2-3), the image including a floater shadow cast by the floater on the retina (claim 7, line 3);
adjust a position of a focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole of the confocal filter to generate an image of the floater (claim 1, lines 16-17);
determine an xy-location (claim 1, lines 9-11) of the floater shadow (claim 7, line 3) according to an xy-scanner (claim 1, line 9); and
determine a z-location of the floater relative to the retina according to the position of the focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole (claim 1, lines 16-17); and
• a treatment laser device configured to direct a laser beam along a laser beam path (claim 1, lines 7-8) towards the z-location of the floater (claim 1, line 18);
• an xy-scanner (claim 1, line 9) configured to:
receive the SLO beam from the SLO device and direct the SLO beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location (claim 1, lines 9-11) of the floater shadow (claim 7, line 3); and
receive the laser beam from the treatment laser device (claim 1, line 11) and direct the laser beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location (claim 1, lines 14-15) of the floater shadow (claim 7, line 3); and
• a computer configured to control the SLO device and the treatment laser device (claim 1, lines 19-23).
While imaging using SLO implies a detector is present, claim 7 of ‘647 does not disclose a fast photodiode as a detector.
Tassignon, in the same field of endeavor of using laser therapy to treat an eye structure using SLO ([0003]), teaches the use of a fast photodiode as a detector ([0006] – “Such functional extensions rely to a great extent on a relaxed confocal optical design of the SLO, incorporating one or two synchronized avalanche photodetector pathways that feed their signal into a versatile overlay frame grabber imaging board”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser therapy system using SLO in claim 7 of ‘647 to include the avalanche photodetector (fast photodiode) as taught by Tassignon. Given the necessity of using a detector for imaging during SLO, it would have been obvious to try the fast photodiode in Tassignon (as opposed to other categories of detection modalities such as photoresistors). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using the fast photodiodes disclosed in Tassignon.
With regards to claim 3 of the instant application, claim 7 of ‘647 discloses:
The ophthalmic laser surgical system of Claim 1, the treatment laser device comprising a z-focusing component configured to:
• receive the z-location of the floater (claim 1, lines 16-17); and
• direct a focal point of the laser beam towards the z-location of the floater along an angular direction of the xy-location (claim 1, line 18 – an angular direction is implied by targeting the floater coordinates). of the floater shadow (claim 7, line 3);
Claims 9 and 11 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of copending Application No. 18/296,647 (hereinafter ‘647). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. The 04/06/2023 claim set in copending Application No. 18/296,647 is referenced in this double patenting rejection. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
With regards to claim 9 of the instant application, claim 7 of ‘647 discloses:
An ophthalmic laser surgical system for treating a floater in an eye (claim 1, line 1), comprising:
• a scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) device comprising a confocal filter, the confocal filter comprising a lens (claim 1, lines 12-13) and a pinhole (claim 1, line 6), the SLO device configured to:
direct an SLO beam along an SLO beam path towards the eye (claim 7, line 2-3);
generate an image of a retina of the eye (claim 7, line 2), the image showing a floater shadow of the floater cast on the retina (claim 7, line 3);
determine an xy-location (claim 1, lines 9-11) of the floater shadow (claim 7, line 3);
adjust a position of a focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole of the confocal filter to generate an image of the floater (claim 1, lines 16-17); and
determine a z-location of the floater relative to the retina according to the position of the focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole (claim 1, lines 16-17);
• a treatment laser device configured to direct a laser beam along a laser beam path (claim 1, lines 7-8) towards the xy-location (claim 1, line 11) and the z-location (claim 1, line 18) of the floater; and
• a computer configured to control the SLO device and the treatment laser device (claim 1, lines 19-23).
With regards to claim 11 of the instant application, claim 7 of ‘647 discloses:
The ophthalmic laser surgical system of Claim 9, further comprising an xy-scanner configured to:
receive the SLO beam from the SLO device and direct the SLO beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location (claim 1, lines 9-11) of the floater shadow (claim 7, line 3); and
receive the laser beam from the treatment laser device (claim 1, line 11) and direct the laser beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location (claim 1, lines 14-15) of the floater shadow (claim 7, line 3);
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-11, and 16-17 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Tassignon (US PG Pub 2016/0074221 A1, see previously cited) in view of Huang (NPL, “Vitreous Floaters and Vision: Current Concepts and Management Paradigms”; Vitreous: in Health and Disease, see previously cited) and Gramatikov (NPL, “Modern Technologies for Retinal Scanning and Imaging: an Introduction for the Biomedical Engineer, see “Notice of References Cited”), as evidenced by Van de Velde (US 6,789,900 B2, see previously cited).
Regarding Claim 1, Tassignon discloses an ophthalmic laser surgical system for treating a vitreous body in an eye ([0003] – laser therapy to treat vitreous body), comprising:
• a scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) device ([0003] – device uses both OCT and SLO for imaging different features (where either system could be used independently in an imaging device); [0005] – “A precise correlation between retinal anatomy and retinal functioning can be established with the scanning laser ophthalmoscope. This retinal function mapping reveals information about fixation behavior, visual acuity and retinal sensitivity, and is now known to be very helpful to the surgeon when applying various forms of therapeutic laser and for the purpose of low vision rehabilitation”) comprising a fast photodiode ([0006] – “Such functional extensions rely to a great extent on a relaxed confocal optical design of the SLO, incorporating one or two synchronized avalanche photodetector pathways that feed their signal into a versatile overlay frame grabber imaging board”) and a confocal filter ([0028] – “FIG. 4 is similar to FIG. 3 but with the representation of a confocal gated (SLO) depth of focus. The virtual location of a relaxed confocal aperture 52 of about 100 mu diameter is indicated at the waist level of a focused laser beam of 800 to 1000 nm wavelength”), the confocal filter comprising a lens and pinhole ([0006] - US 6789900 is incorporated by reference when describing the confocal SLO system used; US 6789900 [Col 12, Lines 66-67 and Col 13, lines 1-11] - discloses the use of a lens and aperture of the confocal SLO), the SLO device configured to:
- direct an SLO beam along an SLO beam path towards a retina of the eye (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam toward the eye for imaging, Fig. 1, [0025] – SLO used to image the retina);
- receive the SLO beam reflected from the eye using the fast photodiode ([0006] – use of “one or two synchronized avalanche photodetector pathways” for imaging using SLO);
- generate an image from the reflected SLO beam, the image including a vitreous body (Fig. 1, [0025] – SLO used to image the retina);
- determine an xy-location of the vitreous body according to an xy-scanner ([0035] – x/y scanners used to determine xy coordinates);
• a treatment laser device configured to direct a laser beam along a laser beam path towards the z-location of the vitreous body ([0139] – the laser is targeted in three dimensions: “The therapeutic channel uses an independent x/y positioner and micro-deflector (AOD or galvanometer based) for the angular deflections of the flying beam in a predetermined pattern in the focal plane of the laser. A Badal or equivalent focusing mechanism adjusts repeatedly the depth of focus of consecutive layers”);
• the xy-scanner (Fig. 10, [0035], Fig. 12, [0037] – “x/y scanner”) configured to:
-receive the SLO beam from the SLO device and direct the SLO beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location in the vitreous body (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam toward the eye for imaging via the xy scanner described in US 6,789,900); and
-receive the laser beam from the treatment laser device and direct the laser beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location of the vitreous body (Fig. 12, [0037] – “The SLO/MP channel can have a common optical path with the fs laser, including multiplexed or common light sources. The same scanners as in FIG. 10 can be used for both imaging of the retina in an SLO confocal mode and precise targeting of a modulated fs laser beam, as would the beam for MP purpose”); and
• a computer configured to control the SLO device and the treatment laser device ([0139] – the system is controlled to apply a laser to an imaged target “in a predetermined (programmed) 3-D pattern”).
Tassingnon discloses the use of confocal SLO in [0006], [0028], [0037], [0060], [0115], and [0148] while describing the z-resolution and depth using SLO in [0028], [0060], and [0118]. Tassignon does not disclose floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO. Tassignon also does not explicitly describe the following functions as being carried out by the SLO component: (1) adjust a position of a focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole of the confocal filter to generate an image of the floater and (2) determine a z-location of the floater relative to the retina according to the position of the focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole using the confocal filter.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO), teaches SLO can be used to find floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO – “Due to excellent depth of field during coronal plane imaging with the SLO, central vitreous opacities can be very well visualized (see Figure V.B.8-4). Note how the central darkness (umbra) is surrounded by an area of lighter shadow (penumbra) for both floaters. The umbra is the innermost and darkest part of a shadow, while the penumbra is where only part of the light is obscured, resulting in a partial shadow”). It should be noted that laser treatment is a recognized therapy option for floaters (page 779, IV. Therapeutic Considerations – discusses YAG laser vitreolysis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Huang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Huang provides a solution/improvement for treating floaters, which may have a detrimental impact of quality of life. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang.
Gramatikov, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (pages 8-12, discuss the use confocal SLO), teaches an inherent part of confocal microscopy is a controllable depth of field and ability to provide imaging at different depths (page 8: “The main advantage of confocal microscopy is the controllable depth of field, suppression of out-of-focus information, and ability to provide optical sections at different depths [39]”) where a focusing lens and pinhole are used (page 8, “Confocal microscopy”). With respect to SLO, Gramatikov teaches: “The ability to perform confocal imaging is a major advantage of the SLO [45,46]. The confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) was developed several years after the SLO as a new version, taking advantage of the principle of confocal microscopy, to achieve high contrast and depth resolution. By moving a confocal aperture between two end points, a number of tomographic slices can be acquired, to extract depth information [47,48]” (page 9). This suggests that confocal SLO changes the positioning between the lens and pinhole to select a particular depth position and could be utilized in the same role as the OCT in Tassingnon.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the use of confocal SLO in focusing on a depth location by changing the position between the focusing lens and pinhole in Gramatikov. At the time, there would have been a recognized need to determine a z-location of a location in the eye, such as in Tassingnon. Given both OCT and SLO are recognized means of achieving this function, it would have been obvious for Tassignon to try SLO in this role. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using SLO to determine the z-location in Tassignon.
Therefore, Claim 1 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov.
Regarding Claim 3, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 1 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses the treatment laser device comprising a z-focusing component ([0139] - the Badal/AO component) configured to:
• receive the z-location of the vitreous body ([0139] – the Badal/AO component receives the z-location information to match the depth of the imaged target); and
• direct a focal point of the laser beam towards the z-location of the vitreous body along an angular direction of the xy-location of the vitreous body ([0139] – xyz coordinates used to target the laser beam: “The therapeutic channel uses an independent x/y positioner and micro-deflector (AOD or galvanometer based) for the angular deflections of the flying beam in a predetermined pattern in the focal plane of the laser. A Badal or equivalent focusing mechanism adjusts repeatedly the depth of focus of consecutive layers”).
Tassignon does not disclose floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO), teaches SLO can be used to find floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO). It should be noted that laser treatment is a recognized therapy option for floaters (page 779, IV. Therapeutic Considerations – discusses YAG laser vitreolysis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Huang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Huang provides a solution/improvement for treating floaters, which may have a detrimental impact of quality of life. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang.
Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov.
Regarding Claim 4, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 1 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses the SLO device configured to: scan over a larger angular range of 40 degrees or greater ([0006] - US 6789900 is incorporated by reference when describing the confocal SLO system used; US 6789900 [Col 8, Lines 4-35] – a 40-degree field of view is captured by SLO: “A rectangular area of about 0.5 cm2 on the retina is illuminated in the 40 degree field of view of the instrument”). According to MPEP 2144.05: “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” There is no evidence of an “unexpected result or criticality” on the analysis from the discussed range interpretations. Therefore, the SLO system is capable of achieving the 40 degrees or greater angular range.
Therefore, Claim 4 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov.
Regarding Claim 5, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 4 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses the SLO device configured to: scan over a smaller angular range that is smaller than the larger angular range ([0006] - US 6789900 is incorporated by reference when describing the confocal SLO system used; US 6789900 [Col 8, Lines 4-35] – a 20-degree field of view is captured by SLO: “The amount of prefocussing is adjusted with a collimator-telescope 18 that is used to position the waist of the Gaussian beam at specific planes in the retina. The field of view can be changed from 40 degrees to 20 degrees with the help of additional mirrors”). According to MPEP 2144.05: “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” There is no evidence of an “unexpected result or criticality” on the analysis from the discussed range interpretations. Therefore, the SLO system is capable of achieving ranges less than the 40 degrees or greater angular range.
Therefore, Claim 5 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov.
Regarding Claim 9, Tassignon discloses an ophthalmic laser surgical system for treating a vitreous body in an eye ([0003] – laser therapy to treat vitreous body), comprising:
• a scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) device comprising a confocal filter ([0028] – “FIG. 4 is similar to FIG. 3 but with the representation of a confocal gated (SLO) depth of focus. The virtual location of a relaxed confocal aperture 52 of about 100 mu diameter is indicated at the waist level of a focused laser beam of 800 to 1000 nm wavelength”), the confocal filter comprising a lens and a pinhole ([0006] - US 6789900 is incorporated by reference when describing the confocal SLO system used; US 6789900 [Col 12, Lines 66-67 and Col 13, lines 1-11] - discloses the use of a lens and aperture of the confocal SLO), the SLO device configured to:
- direct an SLO beam along an SLO beam path towards the eye (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam toward the eye for imaging, Fig. 1, [0025] – SLO used to image the retina);
- generate an image of a retina of the eye, the image showing a vitreous body (Fig. 1, [0025] – SLO used to image the retina);
- determine an xy-location of the vitreous body ([0035] – x/y scanners used to determine xy coordinates);
• a treatment laser device configured to direct a laser beam along a laser beam path towards the xy-location and the z-location of the vitreous body ([0139] – the laser is targeted in three dimensions: “The therapeutic channel uses an independent x/y positioner and micro-deflector (AOD or galvanometer based) for the angular deflections of the flying beam in a predetermined pattern in the focal plane of the laser. A Badal or equivalent focusing mechanism adjusts repeatedly the depth of focus of consecutive layers”); and
• a computer configured to control the SLO device and the treatment laser device ([0139] – the system is controlled to apply a laser to an imaged system “in a predetermined (programmed) 3-D pattern”).
Tassingnon discloses the use of confocal SLO in [0006], [0028], [0037], [0060], [0115], and [0148] while describing the z-resolution and depth using SLO in [0028], [0060], and [0118]. Tassignon does not disclose floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO. Tassignon also does not explicitly describe the following functions as being carried out by the SLO component: (1) adjust a position of a focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole of the confocal filter to generate an image of the floater and (2) determine a z-location of the floater relative to the retina according to the position of the focal point of the lens relative to the pinhole using the confocal filter.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO), teaches SLO can be used to find floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO – “Due to excellent depth of field during coronal plane imaging with the SLO, central vitreous opacities can be very well visualized (see Figure V.B.8-4). Note how the central darkness (umbra) is surrounded by an area of lighter shadow (penumbra) for both floaters. The umbra is the innermost and darkest part of a shadow, while the penumbra is where only part of the light is obscured, resulting in a partial shadow”). It should be noted that laser treatment is a recognized therapy option for floaters (page 779, IV. Therapeutic Considerations – discusses YAG laser vitreolysis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Huang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Huang provides a solution/improvement for treating floaters, which may have a detrimental impact of quality of life. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang.
Gramatikov, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (pages 8-12, discuss the use confocal SLO), teaches an inherent part of confocal microscopy is a controllable depth of field and ability to provide imaging at different depths (page 8: “The main advantage of confocal microscopy is the controllable depth of field, suppression of out-of-focus information, and ability to provide optical sections at different depths [39]”) where a focusing lens and pinhole are used (page 8, “Confocal microscopy”). With respect to SLO, Gramatikov teaches: “The ability to perform confocal imaging is a major advantage of the SLO [45,46]. The confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) was developed several years after the SLO as a new version, taking advantage of the principle of confocal microscopy, to achieve high contrast and depth resolution. By moving a confocal aperture between two end points, a number of tomographic slices can be acquired, to extract depth information [47,48]” (page 9). This suggests that confocal SLO changes the positioning between the lens and pinhole to select a particular depth position and could be utilized in the same role as the OCT in Tassingnon.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the use of confocal SLO in focusing on a depth location by changing the position between the focusing lens and pinhole in Gramatikov. At the time, there would have been a recognized need to determine a z-location of a location in the eye, such as in Tassingnon. Given both OCT and SLO are recognized means of achieving this function, it would have been obvious for Tassignon to try SLO in this role. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using SLO to determine the z-location in Tassignon.
Therefore, Claim 9 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov.
Regarding Claim 10, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 9 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses the treatment laser device configured to: direct a focal point of the laser beam towards the z-location of the vitreous body along an angular direction of the xy-location of the vitreous body ([0139] – xyz coordinates used to target the laser beam: “The therapeutic channel uses an independent x/y positioner and micro-deflector (AOD or galvanometer based) for the angular deflections of the flying beam in a predetermined pattern in the focal plane of the laser. A Badal or equivalent focusing mechanism adjusts repeatedly the depth of focus of consecutive layers”). Tassignon does not disclose floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO), teaches SLO can be used to find floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO). It should be noted that laser treatment is a recognized therapy option for floaters (page 779, IV. Therapeutic Considerations – discusses YAG laser vitreolysis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Huang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Huang provides a solution/improvement for treating floaters, which may have a detrimental impact of quality of life. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang.
Therefore, Claim 10 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov.
Regarding Claim 11, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 9 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon discloses further comprising an xy-scanner (Fig. 10, [0035], Fig. 12, [0037] – “x/y scanner”) configured to:
-receive the SLO beam from the SLO device and direct the SLO beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location in the vitreous body (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam toward the eye for imaging via the xy scanner described in US 6,789,900); and
-receive the laser beam from the treatment laser device and direct the laser beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location of the vitreous body (Fig. 12, [0037] – “The SLO/MP channel can have a common optical path with the fs laser, including multiplexed or common light sources. The same scanners as in FIG. 10 can be used for both imaging of the retina in an SLO confocal mode and precise targeting of a modulated fs laser beam, as would the beam for MP purpose”); and
Tassignon does not disclose floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO), teaches SLO can be used to find floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO). It should be noted that laser treatment is a recognized therapy option for floaters (page 779, IV. Therapeutic Considerations – discusses YAG laser vitreolysis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Huang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Huang provides a solution/improvement for treating floaters, which may have a detrimental impact of quality of life. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang.
Therefore, Claim 11 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov.
Regarding Claim 16, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 9 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses the SLO device configured to: scan over a larger angular range of 40 degrees or greater ([0006] - US 6789900 is incorporated by reference when describing the confocal SLO system used; US 6789900 [Col 8, Lines 4-35] – a 40-degree field of view is captured by SLO: “A rectangular area of about 0.5 cm2 on the retina is illuminated in the 40 degree field of view of the instrument”). According to MPEP 2144.05: “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” There is no evidence of an “unexpected result or criticality” on the analysis from the discussed range interpretations. Therefore, the SLO system is capable of achieving the 40 degrees or greater angular range.
Therefore, Claim 16 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov.
Regarding Claim 17, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 16 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses the SLO device configured to: scan over a smaller angular range that is smaller than the larger angular range ([0006] - US 6789900 is incorporated by reference when describing the confocal SLO system used; US 6789900 [Col 8, Lines 4-35] – a 20-degree field of view is captured by SLO: “The amount of prefocussing is adjusted with a collimator-telescope 18 that is used to position the waist of the Gaussian beam at specific planes in the retina. The field of view can be changed from 40 degrees to 20 degrees with the help of additional mirrors”). According to MPEP 2144.05: “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” There is no evidence of an “unexpected result or criticality” on the analysis from the discussed range interpretations. Therefore, the SLO system is capable of achieving ranges less than the “40 degrees or greater angular range.”
Therefore, Claim 17 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Tassignon (US PG Pub 2016/0074221 A1, see previously cited) in view of Huang (NPL, “Vitreous Floaters and Vision: Current Concepts and Management Paradigms”; Vitreous: in Health and Disease, see previously cited), Gramatikov (NPL, “Modern Technologies for Retinal Scanning and Imaging: an Introduction for the Biomedical Engineer, see “Notice of References Cited”), and Shimozato (US PG Pub 2015/0297077 A1, see previously cited), as evidenced by Van de Velde (US 6,789,900 B2, see previously cited).
Regarding Claim 2, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 1 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon discloses an xy-scanner (Fig. 10, [0035], Fig. 12, [0037] – “x/y scanner”) configured to receive the SLO beam from the SLO device and direct the SLO beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location in the vitreous body (Fig. 12, [0037] – “The SLO/MP channel can have a common optical path with the fs laser, including multiplexed or common light sources. The same scanners as in FIG. 10 can be used for both imaging of the retina in an SLO confocal mode and precise targeting of a modulated fs laser beam, as would the beam for MP purpose”) where coordinates are integrated into a programmable system ([0139]). However, Tassignon does not disclose an xy-scanner further comprising an xy-encoder configured to: detect a position of the xy-scanner, the position corresponding to an encoder xy-location expressed in encoder units; and report the encoder xy-location expressed in encoder units as the xy-location of the floater shadow.
Shimozato, in the same field of endeavor of retinal imaging using SLO with an xy scanner ([0035-0038]), teaches an encoder which detects the rotational position ([0035]). The encoder captures the current position of the scanner for comparison with programmed instructions ([0070] – “FIG. 4B illustrates the relationship between the instructed drive position waveform of a scanner described above and a current position waveform indicative of a current scanner position. The configuration exemplified by the rotary encoder corresponds to that of a position detection unit that detects the
current position of the scanner, which is a light scanning unit”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the encoder to capture xy scanner position in Shimozato. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Shimozato discuss the positioning of xy scanners during SLO imaging and Shimozato provides a solution/improvement for converting xy scanner position into storable coordinates to better transmit location information in programming. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the encoder to capture xy scanner position in Shimozato.
Tassignon discloses imaging of the retina or vitreous body, but does not disclose floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO), teaches SLO can be used to find floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO). It should be noted that laser treatment is a recognized therapy option for floaters (page 779, IV. Therapeutic Considerations – discusses YAG laser vitreolysis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Huang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Huang provides a solution/improvement for treating floaters, which may have a detrimental impact of quality of life. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang.
Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Shimozato.
Regarding Claim 12, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 9 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon discloses an xy-scanner (Fig. 10, [0035], Fig. 12, [0037] – “x/y scanner”) configured to receive the SLO beam from the SLO device and direct the SLO beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location in the vitreous body (Fig. 12, [0037] – “The SLO/MP channel can have a common optical path with the fs laser, including multiplexed or common light sources. The same scanners as in FIG. 10 can be used for both imaging of the retina in an SLO confocal mode and precise targeting of a modulated fs laser beam, as would the beam for MP purpose”) where coordinates are integrated into a programmable system ([0139]). However, Tassignon does not disclose an xy-scanner further comprising an xy-encoder configured to: detect a position of the xy-scanner, the position corresponding to an encoder xy-location expressed in encoder units; and report the encoder xy-location expressed in encoder units as the xy-location of the floater shadow.
Shimozato, in the same field of endeavor of retinal imaging using SLO with an xy scanner ([0035-0038]), teaches an encoder which detects the rotational position ([0035]). The encoder captures the current position of the scanner for comparison with programmed instructions ([0070] – “FIG. 4B illustrates the relationship between the instructed drive position waveform of a scanner described above and a current position waveform indicative of a current scanner position. The configuration exemplified by the rotary encoder corresponds to that of a position detection unit that detects the
current position of the scanner, which is a light scanning unit”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the encoder to capture xy scanner position in Shimozato. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Shimozato discuss the positioning of xy scanners during SLO imaging and Shimozato provides a solution/improvement for converting xy scanner position into storable coordinates to better transmit location information in programming. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the encoder to capture xy scanner position in Shimozato.
Tassignon discloses imaging of the retina or vitreous body, but does not disclose floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO), teaches SLO can be used to find floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO). It should be noted that laser treatment is a recognized therapy option for floaters (page 779, IV. Therapeutic Considerations – discusses YAG laser vitreolysis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Huang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Huang provides a solution/improvement for treating floaters, which may have a detrimental impact of quality of life. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang.
Therefore, Claim 12 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Shimozato.
Claims 6-8 and 13-15 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Tassignon (US PG Pub 2016/0074221 A1, see previously cited) in view of Huang (NPL, “Vitreous Floaters and Vision: Current Concepts and Management Paradigms”; Vitreous: in Health and Disease, see previously cited), Gramatikov (NPL, “Modern Technologies for Retinal Scanning and Imaging: an Introduction for the Biomedical Engineer, see “Notice of References Cited”), and Hacker (WO 2021069168 A1, see previously cited), as evidenced by Van de Velde (US 6,789,900 B2, see previously cited). Note a machine translation via Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com) was used to interpret the disclosure in Hacker (WO 2021069168 A1- see previously attached for copy of the Description translation).
Regarding Claim 6, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 1 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon discloses an xy-scanner (Fig. 10, [0035], Fig. 12, [0037] – “x/y scanner”) configured to receive the SLO beam from the SLO device and direct the SLO beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location in the vitreous body (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam toward the eye for imaging, [0035] – x/y scanners used to determine xy coordinates). However, Tassignon does not disclose the computer configured to: predict a plurality of next xy-locations of floater shadow, the plurality of next xy-locations of floater shadow comprising a first xy-location and a second xy-location later than the first xy- location.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO), teaches SLO can be used to find floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO). It should be noted that laser treatment is a recognized therapy option for floaters (page 779, IV. Therapeutic Considerations – discusses YAG laser vitreolysis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Huang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Huang provides a solution/improvement for treating floaters, which may have a detrimental impact of quality of life. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang.
Hacker, in the same field of endeavor of laser vitreolysis ([0002]) based on imaging of the target eye structure ([0095]), teaches delays due to imaging (such as OCT) can cause the moving floater to migrate from the identified location in a time-dependent manner, thereby requiring prediction of future locations of the floater ([0043-0044]), which Hacker verifies with Optical Coherence Domain Reflectometry (OCDR) ([0032]). This could be interpreted as predicting coordinates for any number of future time points (such as the claimed first xy-location and second xy-location).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the floater location predictive time-series in Hacker. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Hacker discuss laser therapy based on imaged targets in the eye and Hacker provides a solution/improvement for predicting the location of moving targets based on a reference image for improved accuracy during a laser vitreolysis procedure. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the floater location predictive time-series in Hacker.
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker
Regarding Claim 7, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 6 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon discloses the computer configured to instruct the SLO device to:
• direct the SLO beam at the xy-location of the vitreous body (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam to establish a 2D image of the retina via the xy scanner described in US 6,789,900).
Tassignon does not disclose a time-dependent predicted first xy-location or floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO. Additionally, Tassignon does not explicitly disclose the SLO device determines the z-location of the floater.
This claim uses the same rationale established in claim 6: (1) regarding Huang teaching SLO being used to identify floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina and (2) regarding Hacker teaching delays due to imaging (such as OCT) causing the moving floater to migrate from the identified location in a time-dependent manner, thereby requiring predicting of future coordinates (forming a time series of coordinates) for the floater (see claim 6). The SLO system (such as described in Tassignon) could be used to target any number of predicted coordinates (such as described in Hacker).
Gramatikov, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (pages 8-12, discuss the use confocal SLO), teaches an inherent part of confocal microscopy is a controllable depth of field and ability to provide imaging at different depths (page 8: “The main advantage of confocal microscopy is the controllable depth of field, suppression of out-of-focus information, and ability to provide optical sections at different depths [39]”) where a focusing lens and pinhole are used (page 8, “Confocal microscopy”). With respect to SLO, Gramatikov teaches: “The ability to perform confocal imaging is a major advantage of the SLO [45,46]. The confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) was developed several years after the SLO as a new version, taking advantage of the principle of confocal microscopy, to achieve high contrast and depth resolution. By moving a confocal aperture between two end points, a number of tomographic slices can be acquired, to extract depth information [47,48]” (page 9). This suggests that confocal SLO changes the positioning between the lens and pinhole to select a particular depth position and could be utilized in the same role as the OCT in Tassingnon.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the use of confocal SLO in focusing on a depth location by changing the position between the focusing lens and pinhole in Gramatikov. At the time, there would have been a recognized need to determine a z-location of a location in the eye, such as in Tassingnon. Given both OCT and SLO are recognized means of achieving this function, it would have been obvious for Tassignon to try SLO in this role. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using SLO to determine the z-location in Tassignon.
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker.
Regarding Claim 8, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 6 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses the computer configured to:
• instruct the SLO device to direct the SLO beam at the xy-location (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam to establish a 2D image of the retina via the xy scanner described in US 6,789,900); and
• instruct the treatment laser device to direct the laser beam at the z-location of the vitreous body ([0028] – the depth, analogous to the z-location, is measured using “a confocal gated (SLO) depth of focus”).
Tassignon does not disclose a time-dependent predicted second xy-location or floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO.
This claim uses the same rationale established in claim 6: (1) regarding Huang teaching SLO being used to identify floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina and (2) regarding Hacker teaching delays due to imaging (such as OCT) causing the moving floater to migrate from the identified location in a time-dependent manner, thereby requiring predicting of future coordinates (forming a time series of coordinates) for the floater (see claim 6). The SLO system (such as described in Tassignon) could be used to target any number of predicted coordinates (such as described in Hacker).
Therefore, Claim 8 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker.
Regarding Claim 13, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 9 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon discloses an xy-scanner (Fig. 10, [0035], Fig. 12, [0037] – “x/y scanner”) configured to receive the SLO beam from the SLO device and direct the SLO beam along the SLO beam path towards the xy-location in the vitreous body (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam towards the eye for imaging, [0035] – x/y scanners used to determine xy coordinates). However, Tassignon does not disclose the computer configured to: predict a plurality of next xy-locations of floater shadow, the plurality of next xy-locations of floater shadow comprising a first xy-location and a second xy-location later than the first xy- location.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO), teaches SLO can be used to find floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina (page 776, b. Combined OCT/SLO). It should be noted that laser treatment is a recognized therapy option for floaters (page 779, IV. Therapeutic Considerations – discusses YAG laser vitreolysis).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Huang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Huang provides a solution/improvement for treating floaters, which may have a detrimental impact of quality of life. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the targeting of floaters via a floater shadow imaged by SLO in Huang.
Hacker, in the same field of endeavor of laser vitreolysis ([0002]) based on imaging of the target eye structure ([0095]), teaches delays due to imaging (such as OCT) can cause the moving floater to migrate from the identified location in a time-dependent manner, thereby requiring prediction of future locations of the floater ([0043-0044]), which Hacker verifies with Optical Coherence Domain Reflectometry (OCDR) ([0032]). This could be interpreted as predicting coordinates for any number of future time points (such as the claimed first xy-location and second xy-location).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the floater location predictive time-series in Hacker. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Hacker discuss laser therapy based on imaged targets in the eye and Hacker provides a solution/improvement for predicting the location of moving targets based on a reference image for improved accuracy during a laser vitreolysis procedure. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the floater location predictive time-series in Hacker.
Therefore, Claim 13 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker.
Regarding Claim 14, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 13 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses the computer configured to instruct the SLO device to:
• direct the SLO beam at the xy-location of the vitreous body (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam to establish a 2D image of the retina via the xy scanner described in US 6,789,900); and
Tassignon does not disclose a time-dependent predicted first xy-location or floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO. Additionally, Tassignon does not explicitly disclose the SLO device determines the z-location of the floater.
This claim uses the same rationale established in claim 13: (1) regarding Huang teaching SLO being used to identify floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina and (2) regarding Hacker teaching delays due to imaging (such as OCT) causing the moving floater to migrate from the identified location in a time-dependent manner, thereby requiring predicting of future coordinates (forming a time series of coordinates) for the floater (see claim 6). The SLO system (such as described in Tassignon) could be used to target any number of predicted coordinates (such as described in Hacker).
Gramatikov, in the same field of endeavor of imaging an eye structure using SLO (pages 8-12, discuss the use confocal SLO), teaches an inherent part of confocal microscopy is a controllable depth of field and ability to provide imaging at different depths (page 8: “The main advantage of confocal microscopy is the controllable depth of field, suppression of out-of-focus information, and ability to provide optical sections at different depths [39]”) where a focusing lens and pinhole are used (page 8, “Confocal microscopy”). With respect to SLO, Gramatikov teaches: “The ability to perform confocal imaging is a major advantage of the SLO [45,46]. The confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope (cSLO) was developed several years after the SLO as a new version, taking advantage of the principle of confocal microscopy, to achieve high contrast and depth resolution. By moving a confocal aperture between two end points, a number of tomographic slices can be acquired, to extract depth information [47,48]” (page 9). This suggests that confocal SLO changes the positioning between the lens and pinhole to select a particular depth position and could be utilized in the same role as the OCT in Tassingnon.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the use of confocal SLO in focusing on a depth location by changing the position between the focusing lens and pinhole in Gramatikov. At the time, there would have been a recognized need to determine a z-location of a location in the eye, such as in Tassingnon. Given both OCT and SLO are recognized means of achieving this function, it would have been obvious for Tassignon to try SLO in this role. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of successfully using SLO to determine the z-location in Tassignon.
Therefore, Claim 14 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker.
Regarding Claim 15, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 13 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses the computer configured to:
• instruct the SLO device to direct the SLO beam at the xy-location (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam to establish a 2D image of the retina via the xy scanner described in US 6,789,900); and
• instruct the treatment laser device to direct the laser beam at the z-location of the vitreous body ([0028] – the depth, analogous to the z-location, is measured using “a confocal gated (SLO) depth of focus”).
Tassignon does not disclose a time-dependent predicted second xy-location or floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO.
This claim uses the same rationale established in claim 13: (1) regarding Huang teaching SLO being used to identify floaters by identifying floater shadows over the retina and (2) regarding Hacker teaching delays due to imaging (such as OCT) causing the moving floater to migrate from the identified location in a time-dependent manner, thereby requiring predicting of future coordinates (forming a time series of coordinates) for the floater (see claim 6). The SLO system (such as described in Tassignon) could be used to target any number of predicted coordinates (such as described in Hacker).
Therefore, Claim 15 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Hacker.
Claim 18 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Tassignon (US PG Pub 2016/0074221 A1, see previously cited) in view of Huang (NPL, “Vitreous Floaters and Vision: Current Concepts and Management Paradigms”; Vitreous: in Health and Disease, see previously cited), Gramatikov (NPL, “Modern Technologies for Retinal Scanning and Imaging: an Introduction for the Biomedical Engineer, see “Notice of References Cited”), and Wang (US PG Pub 2020 /0038241 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”), as evidenced by Van de Velde (US 6,789,900 B2, see previously cited).
Regarding Claim 18, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 1 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon discloses a confocal SLO system using a lens and aperture/pinhole ([0006] - US 6789900 is incorporated by reference when describing the confocal SLO system used; US 6789900 [Col 12, Lines 66-67 and Col 13, lines 1-11] - discloses the use of a lens and aperture of the confocal SLO). However, Tassignon does not disclose wherein the lens comprising an electrically tunable lens having an adjustable focal point.
Wang, in the same field of endeavor of targeting the vitreous with a laser ([0002]), teaches a tunable lens adjusted to image any portion of the eye ([0062] – “By using the tunable lens before the video camera, the optical system is configured to focus light emitted anywhere within the entire depth of the eye onto the video camera CAM, so as to image different planes of the eye from the iris to the retina […] As mentioned earlier, the tunable lens can be either tunable by adjusting the optical power of the lens, or by moving an imaging lens having a fixed optical power. Such a fixed power lens may be mounted on a mechanically moveable stage (moved by a motor or an actuator)”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Tassignon’s vitreous ablation system using SLO imaging by incorporating the tunable lens in Huang. This would have been obvious because both Tassignon and Wang discuss laser therapy of targets in the vitreous body (or related to the vitreous body such as floaters) and Wang provides a solution/improvement for adjusting the lens to focus on any part of the eye for imaging. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the system of Tassignon by incorporating the tunable lens in Huang.
Therefore, Claim 18 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang, Gramatikov, and Wang.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796