DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remark”, filed 09/08/2025, with respect to the objections to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 09/08/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the cited art of Raski does not teach the depth scanning requirement separated into two depth scanning components. This is unpersuasive. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a “depth scanning requirement” does include the speed or NA the depth scanning occurs at, as cited in the previous action, and Raski in Para. 0179 states the two z scanners can be separately controlled for their NA or speed. If a specific requirement is intended for the depth scanner/components, the requirement should be more explicitly stated. This also stands for the further argument that treatment control data is not used to control a depth scanning requirement representing modulation of the depth of the focal spot, as the table of Fig. 10 shows that the depth scan parameters are determined by the listed components.
For these reasons, the previous rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-9, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication 20110028948 awarded to Raski et al, hereinafter Raski.
Regarding Claims 1 and 16, Raski teaches an ophthalmological device for processing a curved treatment face in eye tissue (abstract) and a computer program product comprising a non-transitory computer-readable medium having stored thereon computer program code for controlling a processor of an ophthalmological device (Para. 0053), comprising: a laser source configured to generate a pulsed laser beam (Para. 0007, “a laser system for ophthalmic surgery includes a laser source to produce a pulsed laser beam”); a focussing optical module having a projection axis and being configured to make the pulsed laser beam converge onto a focal spot in or on the eye tissue (Para. 0019, “an objective, to focus the XYZ scanned laser beam into a target region, wherein the focused scanned laser beam has a focal spot with a focal spot radius”); a scanner system comprising a first z-scanner configured to modulate a depth of the focal spot along the projection axis with first scan performance characteristics (Fig. 9, Para. 0162, “The first Z Scanner 250 receives the laser beam from the laser engine 100 and scans a focal point of the laser delivery system 1' over a first Z interval along an optical axis of the laser delivery system 1'”), indicating dynamic depth scanning capabilities of the first z-scanner, a second z- scanner configured to modulate the depth of the focal spot along the projection axis with second scan performance characteristics (Para. 0162, “The outputted XY scanned laser beam is then received by a second Z Scanner 450, which scans the focal point of the laser system over a second Z interval along the optical axis of the laser system”), indicating dynamic depth scanning capabilities of the second z-scanner which are greater than the dynamic depth scanning capabilities of the first z-scanner (Para. 0165, “In some embodiments the first Z interval is within the range of 1-5 mm and the second Z interval is within the range of 5-10 mm”), and an x/y-scanner system configured to move the focal spot in directions normal to the projection axis (Para. 0162, “The beam, outputted by the first Z Scanner 250 is received by the XY Scanner 300, which scans the laser beam in a direction essentially transverse to the optical axis of the laser system. The outputted XY scanned laser beam is then received by a second Z Scanner 450”); a circuit configured to control the scanner system to move the focal spot to target locations on the curved treatment face along a processing path defined by treatment control data (Para. 0174, “Here, the Z Scanners and NA controllers quite generally refer to a single lens or a lens group, which can modify the Z depth and the numerical aperture NA, respectively. In some cases these modifiers can be activated, or controlled by a single electric actuator, which makes the lenses of the modifier move synchronously to modify the NA or the Z depth of the beam”), to determine from the treatment control data a depth scanning requirement, representing modulation of the depth of the focal spot along the processing path defined by the treatment control data (Para. 0182, “FIG. 10 illustrates that the various system characteristics, such as the Z depth of the beam, its numerical aperture NA and its aberration, represented by its aberration measure such as the Strehl ratio S, can be controlled or adjusted independently of each other. Such embodiments offer a great control and precision to the operator of laser delivery system 1”), to divide the depth scanning requirement into a first depth scanning component for the first z-scanner and a second depth scanning component for the second z-scanner, to control the first z- scanner using the first depth scanning component, and to control the second z- scanner using the second depth scanning component (Para 0179, “2 Z Scanners can perform Z scanning at two speeds and also control the NA, when combined with 1 or 2 NA controllers”).
Regarding Claim 2, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 1, wherein the circuit is configured to determine the first depth scanning component and the second depth scanning component, using the first scan performance characteristics and the second scan performance characteristics (Para. 0162, “The first Z Scanner 250 receives the laser beam from the laser engine 100 and scans a focal point of the laser delivery system 1' over a first Z interval along an optical axis of the laser delivery system 1'. The beam, outputted by the first Z Scanner 250 is received by the XY Scanner 300, which scans the laser beam in a direction essentially transverse to the optical axis of the laser system. The outputted XY scanned laser beam is then received by a second Z Scanner 450, which scans the focal point of the laser system over a second Z interval along the optical axis of the laser system”).
Regarding Claim 3, Raski teaches the wherein the circuit is configured to determine from the treatment control data a spherical component of the curved treatment face and a complementary component for the curved treatment face, the complementary component complementing the spherical component to make up the curved treatment face (Para. 0089, “The relationship between these aberration measures is demonstrated by showing the spherical aberration coefficient a.sub.40 and the corresponding Strehl ratio S in a specific example. In the example, the surgical laser system focuses the laser beam in an ocular tissue at different depths below its surface. The laser beam is diffraction limited, with a 1 micrometer wavelength and NA=0.3 numerical aperture, and is focused at the surface of the tissue at normal angle of incidence”), and to divide the depth scanning requirement into the first depth scanning component, as required for the modulation of the depth of the focal spot for the spherical component (Para. 0141, “In some implementations the movable lens of the lens group is movable in a Z moving range to reduce a first aberration measure by at least a movable percentage P(movable). Here the first aberration measure can be a spherical aberration coefficient a.sub.40, an RMS wavefront error .omega., and a focal spot radius r.sub.f; and the movable percentage P(movable) can be 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%”), and the second depth scanning component, as required for the modulation of the depth of the focal spot for the complementary component (Para. 0142, “In some implementations the movable lens of the lens group is movable in a Z moving range to increase a Strehl ratio S by at least a movable percentage P(movable), which can be 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%”).
Regarding Claim 4, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 1, wherein determining the depth scanning requirement includes determining required dynamics of the modulation of the depth of the focal spot along the processing path defined by the treatment control data (Para. 0138); and the circuit is configured to determine the first depth scanning component using the first scan performance characteristics and the required dynamics, and to determine the second depth scanning component using the second scan performance characteristics and the required dynamics (Para. 0179, “2 Z Scanners can perform Z scanning at two speeds and also control the NA, when combined with 1 or 2 NA controllers”).
Regarding Claim 5, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 4, wherein the required dynamics comprise at least one of: a required depth scanning speed (Para. 0138).
Regarding Claim 6, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 4, wherein the circuit is configured to determine depth scanning feasibility by checking whether the depth scanning requirement is achievable for the required dynamics, without exceeding at least one of the dynamic depth scanning capabilities of the first z-scanner or the dynamic depth scanning capabilities of the second z-scanner (Paras. 0250-0254 discuss the system adjusting scanning features, such as the speed, and other operating components to meet the depth requirements of the treatment plan), and to adjust the treatment control data to reduce or vary a speed of moving the focal spot along the processing path, in case the depth scanning feasibility is not affirmed (para. 0250, “The actual choice of implementation in practice depends on other higher level system level requirements, such as scanning range, scanning speed, and complexity. Implementations with other numerical ranges can also be configured to perform some or all of the above described functionalities”).
Regarding Claim 7, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 6, wherein the circuit is configured to determine the depth scanning feasibility by computing a simulation of moving the focal spot along the processing path, defined by the treatment control data, using the first depth scanning component and the second depth scanning component (Para. 0098, “The aberration measures can be determined in several different ways. A wavefront of the laser beam can be tracked in a computer-aided design (CAD) process through a selected section of the optical pathway, such as a model of the target tissue, or a section of the laser delivery system 1. Or, the aberration of the laser beam can be measured in an actual laser delivery system, or a combination of these two procedures”, Para. 0228 discloses that Z scanning paths can be scanned for aberration values).
Regarding Claim 8, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 6, wherein the circuit is configured to perform the depth scanning feasibility by controlling the scanner system to move the focal spot along the processing path, defined by the treatment control data, using the first depth scanning component and the second depth scanning component, while setting the laser source to at least one of: a deactivated state or a reduced energy without any effect to the eye tissue (Para. 0060, “Finally, in some implementations, which use an infrared and thus invisible surgical laser beam, an additional tracking laser may be employed operating at visible frequencies. The visible tracking laser may be implemented to track the path of the infrared surgical laser. The tracking laser may be operated at a low enough energy not to cause any disruption of the target tissue. The observation optics may be configured to direct the tracking laser, reflected from the target tissue, to the operator of the laser delivery system 1”).
Regarding Claim 9, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 1, wherein the first scan performance characteristics include a first maximum depth scanning speed and the second scan performance characteristics include a second maximum depth scanning speed or frequency which is faster than the first maximum depth scanning speed or frequency (Para. 0179 states the Z scanning of two separate Z scanners can occur at different speeds); and the circuit is configured to determine the first depth scanning component using the first maximum depth scanning speed or frequency, and to determine the second depth scanning component using the a second maximum depth scanning speed or frequency (Para. 0174, “Here, the Z Scanners and NA controllers quite generally refer to a single lens or a lens group, which can modify the Z depth and the numerical aperture NA, respectively. In some cases these modifiers can be activated, or controlled by a single electric actuator, which makes the lenses of the modifier move synchronously to modify the NA or the Z depth of the beam”).
Regarding Claim 12, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 1, wherein the ophthalmological device further comprises a patient interface having a central axis and being configured to fix the focussing optical module on the eye (Para. 0263, “A vertical path of this length can emerge from the following design principles. The Objective 700 can be mounted on a vertical sliding stage to provide a safe and reliable docking of the laser delivery system 1 by a gantry to the eye”); and the circuit is further configured, in case of a tilt of the eye with respect to the central axis of the patient interface, to adapt the treatment control data to tilt the curved treatment surface corresponding to the tilt of the eye (Para. 0260), prior to determining the depth scanning requirement, and to use the adapted treatment control data to determine the depth scanning requirement and divide the depth scanning requirement into the first depth scanning component and the second depth scanning component (Paras. 0056-0057 discuss adjusting the parameters of the surgical plan before and during the surgery based on patient movement).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20110028948 awarded to Raski et al, hereinafter Raski, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20130050649 awarded to Juhasz et al, hereinafter Juhasz.
Regarding Claim 10, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 1. Raski does not teach wherein the first scan performance characteristics include a first maximum amplitude of depth modulation at a particular speed or frequency of the depth modulation; the second scan performance characteristics include a second maximum amplitude of depth modulation at the particular speed or frequency of the depth modulation, the second maximum amplitude of depth modulation being smaller than the first maximum amplitude of depth modulation in a comparatively lower dynamic performance range, and the second maximum amplitude of depth modulation being greater than the first maximum amplitude of depth modulation in a comparatively higher dynamic performance range; and the circuit is configured to determine the first depth scanning component using the first maximum amplitude of depth modulation, and to determine the second depth scanning component using the second maximum amplitude of depth modulation.
However, in the art of ophthalmological surgery, Juhasz teaches optimizing depth scan characteristics based on the maximum amplitude of depth modulation (Para. 0071) and determining the appropriate depth based on these values (Para. 0071-0072).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raski by Juhasz, i.e. by using the depth scanning system of Juhasz in the Z-scanners of Raski, for the predictable purpose of simply substituting one method of depth determination for another.
Claims 11 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication 20110028948 awarded to Raski et al, hereinafter Raski, in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20200188166 awarded to Buck et al, hereinafter Buck.
Regarding Claims 11 and 15, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 1, wherein the first z-scanner comprises a first actuator, the second z-scanner comprises a second actuator (Para. 0175). Raski does not teach wherein and the circuit is configured to determine a phase difference between actuation by the first actuator and actuation by the second actuator, and to generate, for the first depth scanning component, a first control signal for the first actuator and, for the second depth scanning component, a second control signal for the second actuator, using the phase difference, or wherein the first scan performance characteristics include at least one of: a first maximum acceleration of the depth modulation, or a first maximum speed of the acceleration of the depth modulation; the second scan performance characteristics include at least one of: a second maximum acceleration of the depth modulation, greater than the first maximum acceleration of the depth modulation, or a second maximum speed of the acceleration of the depth modulation, greater than the first maximum speed of the acceleration of the depth modulation; and the circuit is configured to determine the first depth scanning component using the first maximum acceleration or the first maximum speed of the acceleration, and to determine the second depth scanning component using the second maximum acceleration or the second maximum speed of the acceleration.
However, in the art of ophthalmological surgery, Buck teaches using acceleration changes of the depth scanning actuators to determine and control and stabilize the scanning characteristics of the laser system (Para. 0115-0117) and allowing for slower acceleration of one scanning component to another (Para. 0164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raski by Buck, i.e. by using the acceleration modulation system of Buck in the system of Raski, for the predictable purpose of simply substituting one known scanning system for another.
Regarding Claim 13, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 1. Raski does not teach wherein the scanner system is configured to move the focal spot along a spiral-shaped processing path.
However, Buck teaches the usage of a spiral shaped scanning pattern (Para. 0164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raski by Buck, i.e. by using the spiral scanning system of Buck in the system of Raski, for the predictable purpose of simply substituting one known scanning system for another.
Regarding Claim 14, Raski teaches the ophthalmological device of claim 1, wherein the x/y scanning occurs a scan line extending transversely with respect to the feed line of the processing path (Para. 0185). Raski does not teach wherein the x/y-scanner system comprises a first x/y-scanner, configured to move the focal spot with a feed speed along a feed line of the processing path, and the x/y-scanner system comprises a second x/y scanner, configured to move the focal spot with a scan speed, which is higher than the feed speed. Raski further does teach a scanner system with multiple, separate x/y components that are independently movable (Para. 0185), and wherein similar scanning components can be moved at different speeds (Para. 0175).
However, Buck teaches the usage of two separate x/y scanning systems with a scan line (Para. 0077-0078) extending transversely with respect to the feed line of the processing path (Fig. 23, Para. 0164).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Raski by Buck, i.e. by using the double x/y scanning system of Buck in the system of Raski, for the predictable purpose of simply substituting one known scanning system for another, as Raski already teaches the usage of separately controllable x/y components.
Conclusion
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 Jess Mullins whose telephone number is (571)-272-8977. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST M-F.
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, James Kish, can be reached at (571)-272-5554. The fax number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (In USA or Canada) or (571)-272-1000.
/JLM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/AMANDA L STEINBERG/Examiner, Art Unit 3792