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
1. Applicant's arguments filed 04/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the art of Deutsch does not teach there being two laser beam monitors within the processing head. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Par. 0166 teaches that there is a photodetector [16] and target laser detectors [20] (i.e. first and second beam monitors) that are coupled to/arranged within the aperture arrangements [14]. Looking at Fig 3a, the aperture arrangements (which include the detectors, see Fig. 1A) are placed within the laser head, being placed so they can take in the laser beam. Therefore, this portion of the rejection still stands.
The Applicant further argues that the art of Deutsch does not teach actually characterizing the laser beam, but rather only observes it. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Par. 0096 of Deutsch teaches that the energy of the laser beam can be measured and used to determine the fluence of the beam and this can then be comprared to thresholds to make adjustments to the laser fluence/energy, i.e. keeping the beam within tolerance limits. Based on this except from Deutsch, it would appear that they do not just observe the beam, but rather characterize the energy of the beam and make sure it is within the correct range. This portion of the rejection still stands.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
2. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “primary laser beam monitor” in claims 1, 14, and 18 is being interpreted as a photodiode, a photodetector array, a thermopile, a position sensitive device, an optical power sensor, a microbolometer, or a pyroelectric detector (Per claims 4 and 7)
the “secondary laser beam monitor” of claims 1, 14, and 18 is being interpreted as a photodiode, a photodetector array, a thermopile, a position sensitive device, an optical power sensor, a microbolometer, or a pyroelectric detector (per claims 6 and 8)
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 12-15, 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Deutsch (US 20220296418 A1).
In regards to claims 1, 14, and 18, Deutsch discloses an ophthalmological laser treatment device (Abstract and Par. 0001), the ophthalmological laser treatment device comprising:
a base station having a treatment laser source configured to generate a treatment laser beam (Par. 0183 and Fig 6-7b show teaches a laser source [1004] on a base configured to emit a beam [1002]);
a control module (Par. 0166 teaches a control unit [48]);
an application head (Par. 0139 teaches a processing head [1020]); and
an arm arranged between the base station and the application head configured to provide a beam path for the treatment laser beam (Par. 0194 teaches an arm [1024] and Fig 7 shows the processing arm being between a base and the application head) ;
wherein the application head includes a primary laser beam monitorPar. 0156 and 0166 teaches a photodetector [16] and additional detector/sensor devices, i.e. laser beam monitors), and
wherein the control module is configured to:
move Par. 0166 teaches the controller is in communication with the photodetector/other sensor element. Par. 0146 teaches the photodetector (or additional sensor element see Par. 0166) is used to detect the signals from the laser beams and determine characteristics, such as laser power. Par 0166 teaches that the aperture arrangement [10], which includes the photodetector [16], is movable.),
determine whether one or more of the primary signal characteristics and one or more of the secondary signal characteristics satisfy one or more pre-defined tolerance limits, and retract the primary laser beam monitor out of the treatment laser beam, if the one or more pre-defined tolerance limits are satisfied (Par. 0096 and 0159 teaches the laser characteristics are compared to a tolerance threshold and then if the threshold/tolerance is okay the photodetector can be retracted).
In regards to claim 2, 15 and 19, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1/14/18, wherein the control module is further configured to: continuously during treatment, using the secondary signal, the secondary signal characteristics, and determine whether one or more of the secondary signal characteristics satisfy one or more pre-defined operating criteria, and stop the treatment laser beam from exiting the application head, if the one or more secondary signal characteristics do not satisfy the pre-defined operating criteria (Par. 0096 teaches comparing the energy, i.e. signal characteristic, obtained is compared to a tolerance level and can be adjusted if it is not within the threshold/tolerance limits. Par. 0106 further teaches the treatment beam can be interrupted or terminated).
In regards to claim 5 and 17, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1/14, wherein the control module is configured to adjust the treatment laser beam, using one or more of: the primary signal characteristics or the secondary signal characteristics, by controlling one or more of: the treatment laser source, a laser attenuator, a beam shapePar. 016 teaches the control unit reading the signals from the photodetectors, i.e. monitors, and then controlling the laser system based on these).
In regards to claim 6, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1, wherein the secondary laser beam monitor is arranged behind a beam- splitter (Par. 0166 teaches the energy sensor being behind a beam-splitter).
In regards to claim 12, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1, wherein the primary signal characteristics and the secondary signal characteristics relate to one or more of the following properties of the treatment laser beam: a beam position, a beam orientation, a beam power, a pulse energy, or a beam profile (Par. 0166 teaches energy monitoring).
In regards to claim 13, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1, wherein the control module is further configured to generate an alarm message if at least one of the primary signal characteristics and at least one of the secondary signal characteristics do not satisfy the pre-defined tolerance limits (Par. 0106 teaches sending a notification to the user if the beam output needs to be adjusted).
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.
4. Claim(s) 3, 9, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch in view of Gertner (US 20090161827 A1).
In regards to claim 3, 16, and 20, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1/14/18 wherein the control module is further configured to: monitor, continuously during treatment, using the secondary signal, the secondary signal characteristics, the secondary signal characteristics including a beam position, record the secondary signal characteristics during treatment (Par. 0162 teaches using detector signals to determine the positioning of the laser beam) and
While Deutsch discloses determining the position of the beam, they do not disclose then using this positioning information to generate a dose map, the dose map indicative of energy distributed in an eye. However, in the same field of endeavor, Gertner teaches a method for applying laser to the eye in an ophthalmic system (Abstract) wherein a dose map is created showing the energy distributed in the eye (Fig 37a-b and Par. 0053-0054) in order to make sure the appropriate amount of energy is delivered to the treatment area (Par. 0054)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Deutsch and modified them by having the system create a dose map, as taught and suggested by Gertner, in order to make sure the appropriate amount of energy is delivered to the treatment area (Par. 0054 of Gertner).
In regards to claim 9, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1, except for wherein a sensor device of the primary laser beam monitor and a sensor device of the secondary laser beam monitor have a different physical sensing principle (while Deutsch teaches having multiple sensors, they are all energy/photodetector related).
However, in the same field of endeavor, Gertner teaches a method for applying laser to the eye in an ophthalmic system (Abstract) wherein a positioning sensor is also used (Par. 0348) in order to make sure the beam is placed in the accurate spot.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Deutsch and modified them by having the system comprise an additional sensor that is not a photodetector, as taught and suggested by Gertner, in order to make sure the beam is placed in the accurate spot.
5. Claim(s) 4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch in view of Mordaunt (US 20070129775 A1).
In regards to claim 4, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1, wherein the secondary laser beam monitor comprises a photodetector array and the secondary signal characteristics include one or more of: a second beam power, a second pulse energy, a second beam position, a beam orientation, or a beam profile (Par. 0146 and 0166 teach a photodetector that can measuring beam energy).
Deutsch does not teach wherein the primary laser beam monitor comprises a photodiode and the primary signal characteristics include one or more of: a first beam power, a first pulse energy, or a first beam position. However, in the same field of endeavor, Mordaunt teaches an ophthalmic device for eye treatment (Abstract) wherein the system comprises a photodiode for detecting the power of the treatment laser beam (Par. 0029) in order to assure that the light source is operating at the desired power (Par. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Deutsch and modified them by having the system comprise a photodiode to detect the power of the laser b beam, as taught and suggested by Mordaunt, in order to assure that the light source is operating at the desired power (Par. 0029 of Mordaunt).
In regards to claims 7 and 8, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1, except for wherein the primary and secondary laser beam monitor comprises one or more of the following types of sensor device: a photodiode, a photodetector array, a thermopile, a position sensitive device, an optical power sensor, a microbolometer, or a pyroelectric detector
However, in the same field of endeavor, Mordaunt teaches an ophthalmic device for eye treatment (Abstract) wherein the system comprises a photodiode for detecting the power of the treatment laser beam (Par. 0029) in order to assure that the light source is operating at the desired power (Par. 0029).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Deutsch and modified them by having the system comprise a photodiode to detect the power of the laser b beam, as taught and suggested by Mordaunt, in order to assure that the light source is operating at the desired power (Par. 0029 of Mordaunt).
6. Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Deutsch in view of Orthaber (US 20170196733 A1).
In regards to claim 10, Deutsch discloses the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 1, except for wherein the base station further comprises a pilot light source including one or more of: a pilot laser source or a pilot light-emitting diode, the pilot light source is coupled into the beam path, and wherein the secondary signal includes a pilot signal from the pilot light source.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Orthaber discloses a laser treatment device for ophthalmic purposes (Abstract) wherein a pilot laser source is used (Par. 0031) in order to help the doctor to navigate during a treatment as it illuminates a spot, onto which the pulses are directed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teachings of Deutsch and modified them by having the system comprise a pilot light source/beam, as taught and suggested by Orthaber, in order to help the doctor to navigate during a treatment as it illuminates a spot, onto which the pulses are directed (Par. 0031 of Orthaber)
In regards to claim 11, the combined teachings of Deutsch and Orthaber as applied to claim 10 disclose the ophthalmological laser treatment device of claim 10 wherein the secondary laser beam monitor is arranged behind a beam-splitter configured to partially reflect the treatment laser beam and partially transmit light from the pilot light source (Par. 0166 of Deutsch teaches a beam splitter).
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 SKYLAR LINDSEY CHRISTIANSON whose telephone number is (571)272-0533. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 7:30-5:30 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Niketa Patel can be reached at (571) 272-4156. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.L.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights