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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 10/30/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 8/25/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 (line 9), Examiner suggests -- to
Claim 2 (line 2), Examiner suggests -- therapeutic dose is
Claim 3 (line 4), Examiner suggests -- pulse is
Claim 4 (line 2), Examiner suggests -- therapeutic dose is
Claim 5 (line 3), Examiner suggests -- while
Claim 8 (line 4), Examiner suggests -- is --
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dick (20110238046).
Regarding claim 1, Dick discloses (see at least Fig 2) a confocal scanning laser (Fig 2, [0039], therapy laser 4) ophthalmoscope (Fig 2, [0039], via optics 11 for combining therapy beam 5 from therapy laser 4 with measurement beam 1 of measurement beam source 12, combined beam is focused on retina 8 of eye 9) for providing retinal therapy ([0040], therapy laser) of an eye (eye 9) comprising:- a first light source (therapy beam source 4) configured to emit a treatment beam with a first wavelength to a selected area of the retina ([0038], beam source 4 emits light pulses of, e.g., 1 ps with a wavelength of, e.g., 532 nm), whereby the retina is external to the apparatus (Fig 2); - a retinal functional tracking means (Fig 2, measurement beam 1 producing beam source/analyzer 2) comprising a second light source (measuring laser 12) and a detector (analyzer 2), wherein the second light source (12) is arranged to emit light within a spectrum to the selected area of the retina (Fig 2, [0039] , combined beam is focused on the retina 8 of the eye 9), and wherein the detector (2) is configured to analyze reflected light by the retina at the selected area ([0039], acquisition of the retina image 14 with the exemplarily indicated change of the speckle structure 15 is connected to an evaluation unit 16), wherein the detector is adapted to determine a change in the spectrum of the reflected light ([0041], measuring laser 12 must exhibit a sufficient coherence length for the generation of speckles); and wherein - the apparatus is configured to adapt a therapeutic dose emitted by the first light source in response to the determination of a change in the spectrum of the reflected light ([0040], signal 17 is passed on to a control unit 18 which controls the therapy laser 4 in dependency of the integrated temperature effect signal 17).
Regarding claim 2, Dick discloses wherein the therapeutic dose is characterised by at least one parameter of the first light source including radiant power [0038], therapy beam source 4 emits light pulses of, e.g., 1 ps with a wavelength of, e.g., 532 nm), irradiance, exposure duration, fluence, and/or repetition intervals.
Regarding claim 3, Dick discloses wherein the first light source (therapy beam source 4) is configured to emit a plurality of consecutive treatment light pulses within an exposure duration ([0038], therapy beam 4 emits light pulses), wherein each treatment light pulse is characterised by an peak radiant power, a pulse period and a pulse width, wherein the exposure duration corresponds to the time required to conclude the treatment of the selected area of the retina ([0038], therapy beam source 4 emits light pulses of, e.g., 1 ps with a wavelength of, e.g., 532 nm, which, upon impinging on the retina, trigger an optoacoustic pulse which is optically detected by the analyzer 2 and evaluated by the evaluation unit 10, e.g., by means of the analysis of an OCT image).
Regarding claim 4, Dick discloses wherein the therapeutic dose is characterised by the peak radiant power, the pulse width and/or the number of consecutive pulses within the exposure duration 0038], therapy beam source 4 emits light pulses of, e.g., 1 ps with a wavelength of, e.g., 532 nm, which, upon impinging on the retina, trigger an optoacoustic pulse).
Regarding claim 5, Dick discloses wherein the change in the spectrum of the reflected light is caused by the treatment of retinal cells while energising the first light source for applying the therapeutic dose ([0040], control unit 18 which controls the therapy laser 4 in dependency of the integrated temperature effect signal 17, particularly through deactivation once a predetermined (effect) dose is reached).
Regarding claim 6, Dick discloses comprising a control device (Fig 2, control unit 18) connected to the first light source (4) and the retinal functional tracking means and configured to control the at least one parameter of the first light source in response to the determination of a change in the spectrum of the reflected light ([0040], control unit 18 which controls the therapy laser 4 in dependency of the integrated temperature effect signal 17).
Regarding claim 7, Dick discloses wherein the control device (control device 18) is configured to control the at least one parameter of the first light source (4) while the first light source emits a therapeutic dose to the retina and/or after the emission of a therapeutic dose ([0040], control unit 18 which controls the therapy laser 4 in dependency of the integrated temperature effect signal 17, particularly through deactivation once a predetermined (effect) dose is reached).
Regarding claim 8, Dick discloses wherein the control device control device 18) controls the parameter of the first light source (4) related to at least one treatment objective, wherein the at least one treatment objective is characterised by the thermal ([0040], control unit 18 which controls the therapy laser 4 in dependency of the integrated temperature effect signal 17), biochemical and/or systemic and collective cellular activation of retinal cells.
Regarding claim 9, Dick discloses wherein the spectrum of the light emitted by the second light source includes light in a wavelength between 700nm and 1400nm ([0041], measuring laser 12 must exhibit a sufficient coherence length for the generation of speckles, and the wavelength is preferably in the infrared range, i.e., 700-1300 nm), more preferably between 700nm and 1000nm ([0041], measuring laser 12 must exhibit a sufficient coherence length for the generation of speckles, and the wavelength is preferably in the infrared range, i.e., 700-1300 nm) and most preferably between 700nm and 900nm ([0041], measuring laser 12 must exhibit a sufficient coherence length for the generation of speckles, and the wavelength is preferably in the infrared range, i.e., 700-1300 nm).
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(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dick (20110238046) in view of Kim (20170266041).
Regarding claim 10, Dick discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the wavelength of the light emitted by the first light source is light of a specific wavelength selected in a range from 785nm to 845nm, more preferably from 805nm to 840nm and most preferably from 825nm to 835nm. However, in a similar endeavor, Kim teaches wherein the wavelength of the light emitted by the first light source is light of a specific wavelength selected in a range from 785nm to 845nm, more preferably from 805nm to 840nm and most preferably from 825nm to 835nm ([0044], a treatment beam generated by the treatment beam generating unit 10 has a wavelength in a visible light band or an infrared light band and within the claimed range). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the ophthalmic device Dick with the laser components of Kim for the purpose of optimizing the ability to diagnose the patient's state and perform treatment while checking treatment procedures (Kim).
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Soetikno (20180353064), Sethuraman (20160345839), and Van de Velde (20030179344) are examples of ophthalmoscope with an image scanning system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872