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 1-20 are currently pending and under examination. As per the amendments filed on 05/18/2026, claims 1 and 9 are amended and claims 19-20 are newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7 (Double Patenting), filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the double patenting rejections of claims 1-18 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 (05/18/2026 Remarks, p. 7 - “Applicant hereby provisionally agrees to file a terminal disclaimer upon an indication of allowability of at least one independent claim, should the Examiner still deem it necessary at such time. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests the rejection be held in abeyance”). The double patenting rejections are currently included as part of this rejection as a reminder of the current state of the rejections (in light of amendments).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 8-10, (Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103), filed 05/18/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered. Regarding amended independent claims 1 and 9, Applicant argues:
With respect to amended independent claims 1 and 9, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to teach or suggest "determin[ing] a z-location of the floater relative to the retina" by using, or converting from, "a distance between the focal point of the lens and the pinhole," as presently recited. In particular, although the Office Action relies on Gramatikov for allegedly teaching z-location determination, Gramatikov determines depth information using OCT scans and slices generated from reflected imaging data. See, Office Action, pp. 13-14; Gramatikov, p. 9. Gramatikov does not disclose determining z-location according to a distance between a focal point of a lens and a pinhole of a confocal filter, nor converting such positional information into z-location information of a floater relative to the retina. Rather, Gramatikov generally derives depth information from OCT image data and scan slices themselves. See, Gramatikov, p. 9. Accordingly, Gramatikov fails to teach or suggest the presently claimed zlocation determination in independent claims 1 and 9.
Therefore, Tassignon, Huang, Gramatikov, and Van de Velde, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest all limitations of amended independent claims 1 and 9. Claims 2-5, 10-12, and 16-18, depending from and further limiting claims 1 and 9, are likewise patentably distinguishable for at least the reasons discussed above. (05/18/2026 Remarks, p. 8-9)
This argument is not persuasive. Tassignon discloses the use of confocal SLO in [0006], [0028], [0037], [0060], [0115], and [0148]. 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, which is fully incorporated by reference (Van de Velde: Col 12, Lines 66-67 and Col 13, lines 1-11), could alternatively serve as a focusing unit. The usage of the term “depth” is seen as a location along the z-axis ([0021], [0039], [0093]). However, Tassignon does not explicitly disclose the z-location being determined using "a distance between the focal point of the lens and the pinhole."
Gramatikov 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”). While Gramatikov discusses confocal OCT (although it is not apparent on page 9 as argued), Gramatikov more relevantly (as mentioned on pages 13-14 of the 02/18/2026 office action) also discusses confocal SLO: “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 confocal SLO generates a “ z-location determined using a distance between the focal point of the lens and the pinhole.” The z-axis location with a specific focal plane is interpreted as necessarily determined when creating an image of the retina and finding depth of an object. Therefore, the rejections of independent claims 1 and 9 and dependent claims 2-5, 10-12, and 16-18 are maintained.
Regarding dependent claims 6-8 and 13-15, Applicant argues:
With respect to claims 6-8 and 13-15, Applicant respectfully submits that the cited references fail to teach or suggest "predict[ing] a plurality of next xv-locations of floater shadow," including a first xy-location and a second xy-location later than the first xy-location, as presently recited. The Office Action relies on Hacker for these features. See, Office Action, pp. 27-29. However, Hacker does not disclose the presently claimed predictive future location determination.
Rather, Hacker generally discusses real-time floater detection, tracking, synchronization, focal scanning, and laser triggering based on detected current floater position. For example, Hacker describes detecting floaters, guiding or scanning a laser focus through the vitreous, and triggering laser pulses when the laser focus reaches the detected floater position. See, Hacker, [0041]-[0043]. Hacker also discusses reducing treatment latency and compensating for floater movement through rapid detection and tracking. See, Hacker, [0044]. However, these disclosures are directed to contemporaneous detection and reactive tracking based on current floater position, and not prediction. Still further, Hacker is entirely silent regarding predicting multiple future xy-locations of floater shadows. Accordingly, Hacker fails to teach or suggest the claimed features of claims 6 and 13. Claims 7-8 and 14-15 are likewise patentably distinguishable for at least the same reasons.
Therefore, Tassignon, Huang, Gramatikov, Hacker, and Van de Velde, whether considered alone or in combination, fail to teach or suggest all limitations of claims 6-8 and 13-15. (05/18/2026 Remarks, p. 9-10)
This argument is persuasive. Upon further review, Hacker does not adequately teach the prediction of a floater trajectory along multiple time points as required by the instant claims. Therefore, the rejections of claims 6-8 and 13-15 are withdrawn. See “Allowable Subject Matter” for a further discussion of these claims.
Regarding newly added claims 19-20, Applicant argues:
Newly added claims 19 and 20 are also patentably distinguishable for at least the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 6 and 13, and for the additional reason that the cited references fail to disclose or suggest directing treatment based on predicted future floater shadow locations.
For at least the reasons above, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of the cited references does not render the claims obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Applicant therefore respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection. (05/18/2026 Remarks, p. 10)
This argument is partly persuasive. Claim 19 is dependent on claim 1 and does not inherit the argument from claim 6 while claim 20 is dependent on claim 13 and does inherit that argument. Newly added claim 19 is evaluated in light of the above arguments and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 while claim 20 is addressed in “Allowable Subject Matter.”
Summary: The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1-5, 9-12, and 16-18 are maintained. Newly added claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 6-8, 13-15, and 20 are found to contain allowable subject matter.
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 2016/0074221 A1). 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, the z-location determined using a distance between the focal point of the lens and 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 grounds 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, the z-location converted from a distance between the focal point of the lens and 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).
Note that, if desired, incorporating allowable subject matter in claim 6 into claim 1 and claim 13 into claim 9 would remove the double patenting rejection and requirement for a terminal disclaimer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19: The limitation “direct the laser beam towards the first xy-location and the second xy-location of the floater shadow” is indefinite because the first and second xy-locations lack an antecedent basis. Without any prior description, the first and second xy-locations must be interpreted as two locations which are targeted and rejected in a similar manner to claim 1.
Claim 19 currently depends on claim 1, but it is assumed by the Examiner via context that claim 19 is meant to depend on claim 6. Amending claim 19 to depend on claim 6 (similar to the dependence of claim 20 on claim 13) would cause claim 19 to be reinterpreted as having allowable subject matter.
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, 16-17, and 19 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Tassignon (US 2016/0074221 A1) in view of Huang (NPL, “Vitreous Floaters and Vision: Current Concepts and Management Paradigms”; Vitreous: in Health and Disease) and Gramatikov (NPL, “Modern Technologies for Retinal Scanning and Imaging: an Introduction for the Biomedical Engineer), as evidenced by Van de Velde (US 6,789,900 B2).
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] – use of an SLO device for scanning retinal anatomy and function) comprising a fast photodiode ([0006] – one or two synchronized avalanche photodetectors) 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, the z-location determined using a distance between the focal point of the lens and the pinhole.
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 landmark 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.
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).
Tassignon does not disclose floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Huang yields SLO used to identify 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).
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.
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.
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 ([0003] – device uses both OCT and SLO for imaging different features (where either system could be used independently in an imaging device); [0005] – use of an SLO device for scanning retinal anatomy and function) 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, the z-location converted from a distance between the focal point of the lens and the pinhole.
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 landmark 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.
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). Tassignon does not disclose floaters within the vitreous body as casting a shadow on the retina which can be imaged by SLO.
As stated in claim 9, the proposed combination with Huang yields SLO used to identify 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).
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.
As stated in claim 9, the proposed combination with Huang yields SLO used to identify 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).
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.
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.”
Regarding Claim 19, the ophthalmic laser surgical system in Claim 1 is obvious over Tassignon in view of Huang and Gramatikov, as indicated hereinabove. Tassignon further discloses wherein:
• the treatment laser device is configured to direct the laser beam along the laser beam path towards the vitreous body ([0139] – the laser is targeted in three dimensions: “A Badal or equivalent focusing mechanism adjusts repeatedly the depth of focus of consecutive layers”); and
• the xy-scanner is configured to receive the laser beam from the treatment laser device and direct the laser beam (Fig.10, [0035] – direction of SLO beam toward the eye for imaging via the xy scanner described in US 6,789,900) towards the first xy-location and the second xy-location of the vitreous body (multiple xy locations can be targeted in this system [0035], [0128] – also see 112(b) rejection).
Tassignon does not disclose 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.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Huang yields SLO used to identify 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).
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Gramatikov yields 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 on page 9 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.
Claims 2 and 12 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Tassignon (US 2016/0074221 A1) in view of Huang (NPL, “Vitreous Floaters and Vision: Current Concepts and Management Paradigms”; Vitreous: in Health and Disease), Gramatikov (NPL, “Modern Technologies for Retinal Scanning and Imaging: an Introduction for the Biomedical Engineer), and Shimozato (US PG Pub 2015/0297077 A1), as evidenced by Van de Velde (US 6,789,900 B2).
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]) 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]).
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.
As stated in claim 1, the proposed combination with Huang yields SLO used to identify 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).
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]) 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]).
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.
As stated in claim 9, the proposed combination with Huang yields SLO used to identify 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).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 13-15, 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.
No prior art references could be found that teach or render obvious the limitations of claims 6-8, 13-15, and 20 due to the limitation “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” in claims 6 and 13, which effectively requires the predicting of a floater trajectory via the floater shadow movements.
Hacker (WO 2021/069168) was relied upon as prior art for this limitation in previous office actions. Hacker teaches the tracking of a floater using an initial optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan to establish a rough estimate of the floater position and an OCDR system to check if the floater is at the estimated point to apply a laser therapy ([0095]). However, in light of Applicant’s arguments, Hacker does not appear to teach the future location of the floater shadow to be predicted over multiple time points.
Hacker teaches the problem with tracking floater movements with conventional eye tracking algorithms is both the overall eyeball movements and independent floater movements within the eye must be accounted for ([0043-0044]). Tracking of floaters is represented in other prior art references, such as US 2018/0028354 A1 and US 2014/0257257 A1, but these lack the prediction element. Eye movement prediction algorithms using OCT or scanning laser ophthalmoscope (SLO) for tracking movements of structures which move with eye (i.e. those that only change location because the eyeball moves) are known in the art, such as US 7517085 B2 and “Modeling and Optimization of Closed-Loop Retinal Motion Tracking in Scanning Light Ophthalmoscopy” by Hu et al. However, prior art could not be found which describes predicting the trajectory of a floater (which can move independently) along multiple time points.
Therefore, there is no evidence that this feature has been described in prior art, particularly using SLO, before the effective filing date of the instant application (prior to 11/19/2021). While predicting the future trajectory of an object being visually tracked is known in the art, such as “Object Tracking Using Spatio-Temporal Future Prediction” by Liu et al, these could not be combined in an obvious manner with an eye-tracking SLO system with a reasonable expectation of being able predict a floater trajectory within the eye.
Conclusions
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 9:00 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
Prosecution Insights