DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 0 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections of claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds for rejection.
Applicant has amended claim to recite “wherein the receiving the estimated diffractive power addition comprises calculating a difference between a measured aberration profile of the eye obtained using the sensor while the IOL is implanted in the eye, the measured aberration profile including the non-zero residual refractive error, and a predetermined desired aberration profile; and after applying a first subset of the plurality of laser pulses, re-measuring, using the sensor, an updated aberration profile including an updated residual refractive error, updating the estimated diffractive power addition based on the updated aberration profile, and applying a second subset of the plurality of laser pulses based on the updated estimated diffractive power addition, wherein the re-measuring, updating, and applying are repeated in a closed-loop iteration until a predetermined target condition is met” in claim 1, with new limitations in dependent claims. In response to Applicant’s amendment Examiner has added reference Chang (US Pub No.: 2016/0003706),Nishi (US Pub No.: 2003/0128344) in further view of Platt (US Pub No.: 2006/0261502).
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 1 with dependent claims 2-9 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 requires a non-zero residual refractive error with a means to correct said error. While it stands to reason that the claimed laser can correct a refractive error, “a non-zero residual refractive error” is not disclosed in the specification such that it is part of an “aberration profile” or comprise the “non-zero physical error.” While generic residual errors are disclosed on page 3 line 4 of the specification, this type of error is not explicitly disclosed.
Claim 1 claims a first subset of the plurality of laser pulses and a second subset of the plurality of laser pulses. As the word “subset” is not present in the specification dated 12/09/2022, it is unclear what comprises a subset of laser pulses.
Claim 3 is amended to claim “diffractive profile zone boundaries of a radially varying diffractive phase pattern.” Zone boundaries and a radially varying diffractive phase pattern of said boundaries are not in the specification dated 12/09/2022.
Claim 1 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 1 claims that “the estimated diffractive power addition to partially or fully correct the non-zero physical error” while the amended portion of claim 1 indicates that a correction is based off of a “measured aberration profile including the non-zero residual refractive error.” It is unclear if the diffractive profile correction is correcting for refraction alone or refraction with astigmatism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 27-33 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zickler (US Pub No.: 2010/0082017) in view of Raymond (US Pub No.: 2016/0150952), Dai (US Patent No.: 7,931,371), Chang (US Pub No.: 2016/0003706) and Nishi (US Pub No.: 2003/0128344).
Regarding claim 1, Zickler (US Pub No.: 2010/0082017) discloses a method for improving vision of a subject, the method comprising, receiving, via a control system comprising a sensor (being the sensor in [0051]-[0052], wherein the sensor system consists of this, the imaging interface, and image processor in [0051]), applying a plurality of laser pulses to an intraocular lens IOL (in the abstract), the laser pulses being configured to produce, by refractive index writing on the IOL, the estimated diffractive power addition to partially or fully correct the non-zero physical error (a laser beam to produce “the corrected refractive profile” is disclosed in the abstract. Here, while physical error correction is not specifically disclosed, a correcting of a refractive profile corrects a physical error, and the disclosed laser will correct physical errors in the eye of a user), wherein the applying the plurality of laser pulses to the IOL to produce the estimated diffractive power addition is performed after the IOL is implanted in an eye of the subject (the laser is applied to the eye in [0054], where the eye has an intraocular lens 30 as per [0054]-[0055]).
However, Zickler does not teach that a non-zero residual refractive error that requires an estimated diffractive power addition in the IOL, or receiving, via a control system comprising a sensor, an estimated diffractive power addition to partially or fully correct for a non-zero residual refractive error .
Instead, Raymond (US Pub No.: 2016/0150952) discloses a non-zero residual refractive error that requires an estimated power addition in the IOL (in [0025], refractive error characterization is used for a pre-treatment of an intraocular lens, with IOLs further detailed in [0019]) and receiving, via a control system comprising a sensor (aberrometer sensing disclosed in [0030] and [0038], with [0030] disclosing a processor to derive a treatment vector), an estimated diffractive power addition to partially or fully correct for a non-zero residual refractive error (in [0038], the aberrometer sensing is disclosed to sense aberrations via a sensing of a topography of an eye, with pre-treatment aberration measurements being used to characterize a refractive error as per [0025]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the refractive error characterization of Raymond into Zickler to provide a pre-treatment evaluation of a patient that the controller of Zickler (controller in [0008]-[0010]) can use to control the laser application (use of sensed values for a control in [0052] of Raymond).
With the teachings of Raymond incorporated into Zickler, Zickler in view of Raymond teaches a non-zero refractive error that requires an estimated diffractive power addition in the IOL (As mentioned above in Raymond, in [0025], refractive error characterization is used for a pre-treatment of an intraocular lens. From here, as per [0060] of Zickler, the IOL also includes a mask that includes a diffractive surface that provides a low add in power and as the laser modifies “desired subsurface regions of the intraocular lens” in [0053] of Zickler, Zickler is capable of modifying the diffractive mask via a treatment laser. Here, a wavefront aberrometer for evaluating an eye, described in [0030] of Raymond with more details in [0205], determines aberrations in the eye to which the laser system that acts on a diffractive mask of Zickler in response to said aberrations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the power estimation of Raymond into the device of Zickler as the power addition determination as presented within Raymond provides a means to determine if a power addition is required for the diffractive mask in Zickler and then allows the laser treatment of Zickler to act upon the mask of Zickler, as well as the rest of the intraocular lens of Zickler, to impart said power addition determined by the aberrometer in paragraph [0030] of Raymond.
From here, Zickler in view of Raymond does not teach an instance wherein the sensor is configured to measure the non-zero residual spherical error, and wherein the non-zero residual spherical error comprises a non-zero physical error.
Instead, Dai (US Patent No.: 7,931,371) teaches an instance wherein the sensor is configured to measure the non-zero residual spherical error (a sensor for sensing errors is disclosed in column 9 lines 50-67 into column 10 lines 1-2, where the error is a spherical and/or cylindrical error in column 10 lines 30-45. If an error is found, said error will be non-zero), and wherein the non-zero residual spherical error comprises a non-zero physical error (as a determination of a cylindrical error is present in column 10 lines 30-45, and as a cylindrical error is indicative of the shape of the cornea of the eye, said cylindrical error determination is a determination of a physical error that is non-zero).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the sensors of Dai into Zickler in view of Raymond for the purpose of providing a sensor that is able to quantify aberrations throughout the entire optical system of the patient’s eye in column 2 lines 3-15, where the system detailed in column 2 lines 3-15 is a sensing means for spherical error. From here, as said sensors of Dai are used for determining a spherical error, said sensors are also able to determine a residual spherical error as a residual error that is the error still present after corrective measures are taken and, as the sensors are directly imaging the eye in column 10 lines 30-45, said sensors are still able to sense an error after a corrective action is added.
From here, the combination of Zickler does not teach wherein the receiving the estimated diffractive power addition comprises calculating a difference between a measured aberration profile of the eye obtained using the sensor while the IOL is implanted in the eye, the measured aberration profile including the non-zero residual refractive error, and a predetermined desired aberration profile; and after applying a first subset of the plurality of laser pulses, re-measuring, using the sensor, an updated aberration profile including an updated residual refractive error, updating the estimated diffractive power addition based on the updated aberration profile, and applying a second subset of the plurality of laser pulses based on the updated estimated diffractive power addition, wherein the re-measuring, updating, and applying are repeated in a closed-loop iteration until a predetermined target condition is met.
Instead, Chang (US Pub No.: 2016/0003706) teaches wherein the receiving the estimated diffractive power addition comprises calculating a difference between a measured aberration profile of the eye (determining of aberration characteristics in [0011]) obtained using the sensor while the IOL is implanted in the eye (wavefront sensor in [0005] and claim 20), the measured aberration profile including the non-zero residual refractive error (aberration characteristics to determine a manufacture residual-shape error in [0034] and [0045]), and a predetermined desired aberration profile (being the aberration characteristics independent of the errors defined in [0045]); and after applying a first subset of the plurality of laser pulses (being the laser of Zickler defined above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the aberration monitoring of Chang into the combination involving Zickler for the purpose of providing an additional means to evaluate a plurality of errors in an optical element in [0030] and [0048] including a residual shape error in [0034].
Nishi (US Pub No.: 2003/0128344) teaches and after applying a first subset of the plurality of laser pulses (in Zickler above), re-measuring (re-measuring in [0166], when a re-measuring occurs after a correction), using the sensor (being a measurement beam in [0083] and sensor in [0165]), an updated aberration profile including an updated residual refractive error (re-measuring of a distortion in [0105], where said distortion is an aberration in [0011] and [0078]), updating the estimated diffractive power addition based on the updated aberration profile (re-measuring determines a new distortion value in [0105]-[0106], which changes a determined aberration to be corrected, where the device of Zickler), and applying a second subset of the plurality of laser pulses based on the updated estimated diffractive power addition (the aberration found in Chang and Nishi can be used in Zickler to control the laser of Zickler), wherein the re-measuring, updating, and applying are repeated in a closed-loop iteration until a predetermined target condition is met (in [0106] and [0166], a re-measurement occurs until a desired aberration value is met).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the power evaluation of into Zickler for the purpose of providing a re-measuring step as the remeasuring of Nishi occurs after application of a correction plate G1 in [0279] with the purpose of evaluation a distortion after an initial correction, where [0105]-[0106] discloses further correction after a re-measuring. This is beneficial toward Zickler for the purpose of allowing a treatment as presented in Zickler to be applied again if errors still persist.
Regarding claim 2, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 1, wherein Zickler discloses that the power addition is a positive diffractive power addition (a low add in power is disclosed in [0058] and [0060].As per [0060] of Zickler, the IOL also includes a mask that includes a diffractive surface that provides a low add in power and as the laser modifies “desired subsurface regions of the intraocular lens” in [0053] of Zickler, Zickler is capable of modifying the diffractive mask via a treatment laser) that at least partially reduces a longitudinal chromatic aberration of the eye (treatment of general optical aberrations disclosed in [0043]).
Regarding claim 3, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 1, wherein applying the plurality of laser pulses comprises applying a plurality of focused laser pulses (focusing optics for focusing a pulsed laser in [0028] of Zickler)
However, Zickler does not teach an applying of laser pulses according to a predetermined pattern corresponding to diffractive profile zone boundaries of a radially varying diffractive phase pattern to at least one selected area of the IOL to produce the diffractive power addition. It is the examiners position that Zickler inherently applies laser pulses according to a predetermined pattern to at least one selected area of the IOL to produce the diffractive power addition as the laser correction of Zickler is not random (detailed in [0038]). However, Raymond teaches an applying of laser pulses according to a predetermined pattern (applying of lasers in a pattern in [0042] and [0091]) where the parameters of the measured astigmatism are relative to optical zones (in [0259] of Raymond), implying that the application of laser pulses is relative to optical profile zones, where the phase patterns are implied to be varying as an astigmatism is in said lens in [0259])
to at least one selected area of the IOL to produce the diffractive power addition (the laser of Raymond can be used to treat an intraocular lens in [0038] or [0040]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the spherical error characterization of Raymond into Zickler to provide a pre-treatment evaluation of a patient that the controller of Zickler (controller in [0008]-[0010]) can use to control the laser application (use of sensed values for a control in [0052] of Zickler).
Regarding claim 4, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method claim 1. However, Zickler does not teach an instance wherein the estimated diffractive power addition fully compensates for a longitudinal chromatic aberration. Instead, Raymond teaches a fully compensating for a longitudinal chromatic aberration (compensation for aberrations that include chromatic adjustments via a “chromatic and co-sign correction module” is disclosed in [0142], where a complete correction of an aberration is present in [0021], where Raymond recites that “after treatment of the patient’s eye the aberrations are substantially eliminated,” which requires the treatment to remove all aberrations in the eye.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the chromatic adjustments present in Raymond into Zickler as said adjustments are used in a with a pre-treatment module to control a treatment. As Zickler teaches a laser for treatment of a lens in [0050]-[0051].
Regarding claim 5, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 1, wherein Zickler discloses that the diffractive power addition is estimated based at least in part on at least one of: estimated IOL power to target emmetropia; subject's axial length; surgeon's optimized A constant; and effective lens position (ELP) (evaluation of a position of a lens (ELP) with respect to a cornea laser modification of an implanted IOL disclosed in [0007]. ELP with respect to an IOL is taken to be the distance between said IOL and a cornea).
From here, Raymond teaches a power addition that is estimated based on at least in part on an estimated IOL power to target emmetropia (targeting emmetropia is disclosed in [0021] of Raymond, estimation of a power required by an IOL in [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an estimation of an IOL power to target emmetropia into the determination of a power addition to said IOL as achieving emmetropia in the patient’s eye, as per [0021] of Raymond, eliminates any refractive errors in a user’s vision, also present in [0021] of Raymond.
Regarding claim 6, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 1, wherein Zickler discloses that the laser pulses are configured and applied to the IOL such that the power addition does not induce further spherical aberration or modify existing spherical aberration (as Zickler discloses a determination of aberrations in [0043]-[0044] for the purpose of correcting them with a laser, Zickler is not intended to induce further aberrations).
From here, Raymond (US Pub No.: 2016/0150952) also does not induce further spherical aberration or modify existing spherical aberration (in [0021], where Raymond recites that “after treatment of the patient’s eye the aberrations are substantially eliminated,” which requires the treatment to remove all aberrations in the eye).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the complete elimination of aberrations via a treatment (being a laser treatment in [0035] of Raymond) into the treatment presented in Zickler as doing so achieves emmetropia in the patient’s eye, as per [0021] of Raymond, thereby eliminating any refractive errors in a user’s vision.
Regarding claim 27, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 1, wherein Zickler teaches the estimated diffractive power addition is implemented through a phase pattern (laser to modify an intraocular lens in a “desired pattern” in [0038]).
Regarding claim 28, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 27, wherein Zickler the phase pattern comprises a total phase addition of up to one lambda (in [0067], a high power add is disclosed to allow for the lens to provide “two or more distinct foci.” A power add would need to provide a phase addition of one lambda to provide two or more distinct foci).
Regarding claim 29, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 27, wherein Zickler the phase pattern comprises at least one zone width calculation (controller to select laser parameters including pulse width in [0031]).
Regarding claim 30, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 29, wherein Zickler discloses the at least one zone width calculation is configured to achieve an appropriate power change and slope (enacting a power change in [0058]-[0059]. While slope is not disclosed here, an effective change in optical power, as disclosed in [0059], would require a slope change).
Regarding claim 31, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 27, wherein Zickler discloses the phase pattern comprises a step height larger than one lambda (in [0067], a high power add is disclosed to allow for the lens to provide “two or more distinct foci.” A power add would need to provide a phase addition of one lambda to provide two or more distinct foci).
Regarding claim 32, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 31, wherein Zickler discloses the phase pattern is configured to achieve a monofocal shift (modification of monofocal lenses in [0029], moving of a focal point of the laser in [0038] that will modify a focal point separation and focal point depth of the lens as per [0046]).
Regarding claim 33, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 1, wherein Chang teaches the sensor comprises a wavefront sensor (wavefront sensor in [0005] and claim 20 of Chang).
Regarding claim 35, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 1, wherein the target condition comprises a residual spherical error component of the non-zero residual refractive error being reduced below a threshold (being the aberration that comprises refractive errors in [0078] and distortion error in [0106] of Nishi).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zickler (US Pub No.: 2010/0082017) in view of Raymond (US Pub No.: 2016/0150952), Dai (US Patent No.: 7,931,371), Chang (US Pub No.: 2016/0003706), Nishi (US Pub No.: 2003/0128344), and Knox (US Pub No.: 2018/0373060).
Regarding claim 7, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 6. However, said combination does not teach an instance wherein control of the spherical aberration is performed at least in part by changing the phase profile of the IOL by refractive index writing.
Instead, Knox (US Pub No.: 2018/0373060) discloses an instance wherein control of the spherical aberration is performed at least in part by changing the phase profile of the IOL by refractive index writing (in [0039] and [0053], where a wavefront cross-section phase profile is established via a laser machining. The changes in the refractive indices caused by refractive index writing of the lens of the IOL play a part in correcting aberrations of said lens).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the use of a laser to alter or establish a wavefront cross-section phase profile in an intraocular lens for the purpose of allowing the laser to “vary the refractive index” of materials on an intraocular lens at different regions of the lens, as per [0053]. This allows for the IOL to have multiple regions with different phase profiles (in [0014]-[0015]) which can allow the IOL to have “multifocality” as per [0123], where paragraph [0123] of Knox also discloses that the phase profiles employed are able to correct “native higher order aberration profiles of individuals.”
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zickler (US Pub No.: 2010/0082017) in view of Raymond (US Pub No.: 2016/0150952), Dai (US Patent No.: 7,931,371), Chang (US Pub No.: 2016/0003706), Nishi (US Pub No.: 2003/0128344), Knox (US Pub No.: 2018/0373060) and Serdarevic (US Pub No.: 2019/0060056).
Regarding claim 8, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai and Knox teach the method of claim 7. However, Zickler does not teach an instance wherein control of the spherical aberration is performed at least in part by changing, by the refractive index writing on the IOL, the size of diffractive profile zones in r2 space.
Instead, Serdarevic (US Pub No.: 2019/0060056) teaches an instance wherein control of the spherical aberration is performed at least in part by changing, by the refractive index writing on the IOL, the size of diffractive profile zones in r2 space (use of a laser to modify the radius of curvature in [0089] with a disclosure of an intraocular lens modification in [0114], where r2 is taken to be the radius of curvature. Modifying a radius of curvature means that the area (and the diameter of a profile zone as the diameter is affected by the radius of curvature, with a 3mm diameter being present with a 7.6mm ROC in [0093]) of the profile zones about the r2 space are also be modified).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a modifying a radius of curvature as presented in Serdarevic into the combination with Zickler for the purpose of providing a means to specifically modify the radius of curvature of an IOL when implanted in the body (as per [0114] of Serdarevic) that can be used to correct problems with an intraocular lens that may arise over time and usage of the lenses, as per [0003] of Serdarevic.
Claim(s) 9 and is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zickler (US Pub No.: 2010/0082017) in view of Raymond (US Pub No.: 2016/0150952), Dai (US Patent No.: 7,931,371), Chang (US Pub No.: 2016/0003706), Nishi (US Pub No.: 2003/0128344), Knox (US Pub No.: 2018/0373060), and Wortz (US Pub No.: 2018/0110613).
Regarding claim 9, Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai and Knox teach the method of claim 7. However, Zickler does not teach an instance wherein a phase profile induced in the IOL to correct for residual errors is calculated based at least in part on effective lens position (ELP) measured during the refractive index writing.
Instead, Wortz (US Pub No.: 2018/0110613) discloses an instance wherein a phase profile induced in the IOL to correct for residual errors is calculated based at least in part on effective lens position (ELP) measured during the refractive index writing (Wortz discloses an evaluation of an effective lens position in [0182] and [0187] to determine an error on an intraocular lens. Here, while Wortz does not teach a laser for correcting an error, the ELP determination of Wortz with the laser and controller in the abstract of Zickler can be used in tandem to modify an existing IOL).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the effective lens position determination of Wortz into Zickler in view of Raymond, Dai and Knox Zicklerfor the purpose of providing a means for determining a position of a lens that is disclosed as being “one of the main reasons for this high amount of refractive unpredictability” disclosed in [0182] of Wortz that the device of Zickler can be used to remedy.
From here, Nishi teaches wherein the phase profile is recalculated during the refractive index writing based at least in part on the measured ELP (Nishi teaches a recalculation after an initial correction in [0105]-[0106], which changes a determined aberration to be corrected. Said recalculation can occur in view of the measured ELP of Wortz with the laser of Zickler performing said correction).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zickler (US Pub No.: 2010/0082017) in view of Raymond (US Pub No.: 2016/0150952), Dai (US Patent No.: 7,931,371), Chang (US Pub No.: 2016/0003706) and Nishi (US Pub No.: 2003/0128344) in further view of Platt (US Pub No.: 2006/0261502).
Regarding claim 34, Zickler in view or Raymond, Dai, Chang, and Nishi teach the method of claim 33. However, said combination does not teach wherein the wavefront sensor comprises a Hartmann- Shack wavefront sensor
Instead, Platt (US Pub No.: 2006/0261502) teaches a Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor(in [0014] and [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the Hartmann-Shack wavefront sensor of Platt into the combination of Zickler for the purpose of providing a sensor that can evaluate refractive properties for light adjustable lenses (in [0014]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Knox (US Pub No.: 2018/0373060) considered for a laser machining to create a phase profile in [0039] and [0053]. Serdarevic (US Pub No.: 2019/0060056) considered for a laser modifying a radius of curvature of a lens in [0089]. Ambati (US Pub No.: 2021/0030531) was considered for laser details used to shape an IOL, like in [0071]. Goldshleger (US Pub No.: 2019/0142576) disclosed for a post-operative modification of a lens in [0022].
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AREN PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-0144. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00 - 4:30 M-Th.
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, Jerrah C. Edwards can be reached on (408) 918-7557. 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.
/AREN PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/YASHITA SHARMA/Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774
