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 (AA) filed on 12/02/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant disagrees with Examiner assertion that “it is apparent that creating points across different horizontal planes creates a vertical cutting plane between the two horizontal cutting planes” (see Non-Final Rejection 06/06/2025)- arguing the following:
The assertion made by Examiner goes beyond the teachings of Bernard.
Bernard is silent on the creation of vertical cutting planes.
Examiners assertion is technically incorrect arguing that “creating points across different horizontal planes does not allow creating a vertical cutting plane, and instead results in a stack of horizontal planes.”
Regarding points (i)-(iii), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As best understood, “a vertical cutting plane” is an imagined plane extending between a bubble created on a first horizontal cutting plane (Examiner FIG. 1: Horizontal cutting plane 1) and a bubble created on a second horizontal cutting plane (Horizontal cutting plane 2). Examiner notes that claim 1 as written does not impose any structural features onto the “vertical cutting plane” or require the “vertical cutting plane” to represent a cutting trajectory. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, if Bernard produces bubbles in a vertical plane (Z direction), then it satisfies the limitation of claim 1. As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection (paragraph 20) Bernard is configured to move the cutting plane into different positions along the Z axis (Bernard: col. 8, lines 3-6 and 12-13), creating a stack of horizontal cutting planes.
PNG
media_image1.png
419
855
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues the following in regard to Vogel:
Vogel does not teach or suggest to one of ordinary skilled in the art that such Bessel laser beam can be implemented nor how to generate such a beam.
Vogel teaches one of ordinary skill in the art to create vortex beams which is totally different from Bessel beams.
Vogel does not teach a skilled person that “using the same SLM: - to create horizontal cutting planes, on the one hand and to create vertical cutting planes on the other hand, by applying a phase mask emulating an axicon makes it possible to considerably reduce the time of a surgical procedure for cutting tissue from a patient’s eye.”
Regarding point (iv), Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in paragraphs 23-24 of the Non-Final Rejection, Vogel teaches a laser cutting device that uses a Bessel laser beam to cut corneal tissue (Vogel: [0019]; also see claim 10). Regarding Applicant’s argument that Vogel does not teach one of ordinary skill in the art “how to generate such a beam”, Examiner asserts that Vogel is only being relied upon to teach the generation of oblong gas bubbles (see paragraph 25 of Non-Final Rejection). As discussed later in the Non-Final Rejection (see paragraphs 27-29), Kalkbrenner is brought in to teach a known technique for producing said beams (i.e., via an axiconic modulation instruction).
Regarding point (v), Examiner acknowledges that Vogel teaches one of ordinary skill in the art to create vortex beams. However, as discussed above, Vogel also teaches a laser cutting apparatus that uses a Bessel beam to cut corneal tissue (Vogel: [0019]; also see claim 10). Regardless of Vogel’s teachings, Examiner asserts that Vogel is only being relied upon to teach the generation of oblong gas bubbles (see paragraph 25 of Non-Final Rejection), not the technique for Bessel beam generation.
Regarding point (vi), Examiner asserts that the teachings being argued by Applicant (i.e. “using the same SLM: - to create horizontal cutting planes, on the one hand and to create vertical cutting planes on the other hand”… and “makes it possible to considerably reduce the time of a surgical procedure for cutting tissue from a patient’s eye “, are not required (or recited in) by claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the following in regard to Lim:
Lim does not teach or suggest “producing oblong bubbles thanks to a Bessel beam to create a vertical plane”.
Lim does not teach one of ordinary skill in the art that “using the same SLM to create horizontal planes and vertical planes (by applying a phase mask emulating an axicon allows to reduce the time of a surgical procedure for cutting tissue from a patients eye”
Regarding point (vii), Examiner asserts that Lim is not being relied upon to teach or suggest “producing an oblong bubble thanks to a Bessel beam to create a vertical plane”. As described in paragraph 25 of the Non-Final Rejection, Lim serves as evidence that the ability to modify bubble shape is known in the art.
Regarding point (viii), Examiner asserts that Lim is only being relied upon as evidence that the ability to modify bubble shape is known in the art, not to teach “using the same SLM to create horizontal planes and vertical planes (by applying a phase mask emulating an axicon allows to reduce the time of a surgical procedure for cutting tissue from a patients eye”. Additionally, Examiner notes that the teachings Applicant argues are not taught by Lim et al (i.e., “using the same SLM to create horizontal planes and vertical planes” and “to reduce the time of a surgical procedure for cutting tissue from a patients eye”) are not recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the following in regard to Kalkbrenner:
Kalkbrenner’s technical field is different from Applicants technical field.
One of ordinary skill in the art would not be led to the invention of claim 1, since Kalkbrenner does not each or suggest “using the same SLM: -to create horizontal planes on the one hand, and -to create vertical planes, on the other hand, by applying a phase mask emulating an axicon makes it possible to considerably reduce the time of a surgical procedure for cutting tissue from a patient’s eye”.
Regarding point (ix), Examiner acknowledges that Kalkbrenner is not in the technical field of tissue cutting. Examiner asserts however, that one of ordinary skill in the art looking to use a Bessel type beam in ophthalmic surgery would turn to Kalbrenner for inspiration, because Kalbrenner describes a technique for producing Bessel type beams using an axiconic modulation instruction.
Regarding point (x), Examiner asserts that Kalkbrenner is only being relied upon to teach the using an axiconic modulation instruction to produce a Bessel beam, not “using the same SLM to create horizontal planes on one hand, and to create vertical planes on the other hand” or “makes it possible to considerably reduce the time of a surgical procedure for cutting tissue from a patient’s eye”. Additionally, Examiner notes that the teachings (i.e., “using the same SLM to create horizontal cutting planes on one hand, and to create vertical planes on the other hand” and “makes it possible to considerably reduce the time of a surgical procedure”) argued by Applicant are not recited in claim 1. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
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.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (US 11,351,062) in view of Kalkbrenner (US 2022/0057329) and further in view of Lim et al. (Lim, Kang Yuan, et al. “Nonspherical laser-induced cavitation bubbles.” Physical Review E, vol. 81, no. 1, 14 Jan. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.81.016308.).
In re claim 1, Bernard discloses a cutting apparatus (Fig. 1 : 1) for cutting a tissue (3 ; Col. 5, Lines 42-46 : “cornea”)
wherein said apparatus includes
a femtosecond laser source (2) configured to emit a Gaussian laser beam (4 ; Col. 7, Lines 7-9) in the form of pulses (Col. 5, Lines 47-48), and
a processing device (5-24) of the Gaussian laser beam,
wherein the processing device is arranged downstream of the femtosecond laser source (Fig. 1) and comprises:
a shaping system (9 ; Col. 6, Lines 14-20: “SLM”) positioned on the trajectory of the Gaussian laser beam (FIG. 7 : 32˝), wherein the shaping system comprises a spatial light modulator (38) which modulates the phase of the wavefront of the Gaussian laser beam (Col. 9, Lines 1-6) to produce a modulated laser beam (32˝),
a sweeping optical scanner (Col. 10, Lines 44-47) arranged downstream of the shaping system which moves the modulated laser beam (Col. 10, Lines 48-55),
an optical focusing system (15; Col. 8, Lines 10-13) downstream of the shaping system (Fig.1)
which focuses the modulated laser beam in a focal plane (34) of the cutting apparatus (Col. 8, Lines 10-19; Note the focal plane corresponds to the “cutting-out plane” of the cornea ) and
which is configured to move the focal plane of the cutting apparatus into a plurality of positions along an optical axis (Col. 8, Lines 12-13: “axis Z”) of propagation of the modulated laser beam (Col. 8, Lines 12-13),
wherein the processing device further comprises a control unit (Note: it is apparent that the cutting apparatus of Bernard is controlled by a control unit, part of which would include the control means used to control the shaping system and sweeping optical scanner) which drives the femtosecond laser source, the shaping system, the sweeping optical scanner and the optical focusing system in order to produce at least one vertical cutting plane extending parallel to the optical axis (apparent; Note: It is apparent that creating points across different horizontal cutting planes creates a vertical cutting plane between the two horizontal cutting planes), and
wherein the control unit is configured to:
apply, to the shaping system a modulation instruction (Col. 3, Lines 9-16) in order to produce a modulated laser beam from the Gaussian laser beam (Col. 7, Lines 7-12)
said modulation instruction including a phase mask (10)
said modulated laser beam having an impact point which enables a gas bubble to be generated in the tissue (Col. 3, Lines 24-28 : “cavitation bubble”; cavitation bubbles are vapor filled)
driving the sweeping optical scanner in order to move the impact point of the modulated laser beam along an optical movement path (Col. 10, Lines 48-53) such that adjacent gas bubbles (Fig. 3 : 13) are successively formed wherein said gas bubbles constitute the vertical cutting plane (apparent, see Note above).
Bernard does not disclose
the modulation instruction being axiconic and applying the modulation in order to produce a Bessel type modulated laser beam, said modulation instruction which emulates an axicon applied on the spatial light modulator
wherein said phase mask has a rotational symmetry about a central symmetry point, and
wherein a grey level of each point of the phase mask varies according to the distance between said point and the central symmetry point,
said Bessel-type modulated laser beam having an impact point which enables an oblong gas bubble to be generated in the tissue and thus cutting at a depth greater than a Gaussian beam;
Regarding the limitation
said Bessel-type modulated laser beam having an impact point which enables an oblong gas bubble to be generated in the tissue and thus cutting at a depth greater than a Gaussian beam;
Vogel discloses an analogous laser cutting device capable of using a Bessel laser beam [0019]. Additionally, Vogel discloses using a disc shaped focus to create bubble expansion [0069] such that the material is destroyed in a disc shaped volume (Fig. 4a).
Vogel further discloses that Bessel beams are often used in place of Gaussian beams due to their greatly extended focus area [0019]. As known in the art the extended focus area allows a Bessel beam’s cutting depth to be greater than a cutting depth of a Gaussian beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the cutting apparatus taught by the proposed combination to include the ability to generate oblong gas bubbles, as taught by Vogel. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the ability to modify bubble shape is known in the art (Lim, Kang Yuan, et al. “Nonspherical laser-induced cavitation bubbles.” Physical Review E, vol. 81, no. 1, 14 Jan. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.81.016308.)(abstract) and because different focal shapes, like the disc described in Vogel, have been shown to promote improved cutting precision (Vogel, [0069]).
Regarding the limitations:
the modulation instruction being axiconic and applying the modulation in order to produce a Bessel type modulated laser beam, said modulation instruction which emulates an axicon applied on the spatial light modulator
wherein said phase mask has a rotational symmetry about a central symmetry point, and
wherein a grey level of each point of the phase mask varies according to the distance between said point and the central symmetry point,
Kalkbrenner discloses an apparatus that uses an axiconic modulation instruction to produce a Bessel type beam [0045]. Specifically, Kalkbrenner discloses the modulation instruction being a ring phase mask (Fig. 13a) which emulates the behavior of an axicon, as known by one of ordinary skill in the art. Kalkbrenner further discloses the phase mask being implemented using a spatial light modulator [0044].
Additionally, Kalkbrenner discloses the phase mask being rotationally symmetric about a center point (Fig. 13a). As known in the art, the rotational symmetry of the phase makes it such that the grey level of each point varies according to the distance between said point and the center.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus of Bernard to include an axiconic modulation instruction, as taught by Kalkbrenner. One would have been motivated to make this modification because Bessel beams are used in ophthalmic surgery (Vogel, [0019] : “LASIK flap creation”) and Kalkbrenner discloses a known technique for producing said beams.
In re claim 2, the proposed combination yields
wherein an object focal plane of the focusing system is positioned at a non-zero distance from an image focal plane of the shaping system (Bernard: Fig. 1; the location of the shaping system and relative to the focusing system would make it such that the object focal plane and image focal plane are a non-zero distance from one another) such that the impact point of the Bessel-type modulated laser beam (see above In re claim 1) includes:
a ring (Kalkbrenner; Fig. 13a : one of rings not including center) focused in the focal plane of the cutting apparatus,
a line of concentration (Kalkbrenner; Fig. 13a : center (Note as known in the art, a line of concentration refers to the central high intensity core of the beam which can be maintained over a distance)) of the rays of the Bessel-type modulated laser beam extending outside the focal plane of the cutting apparatus ([0100] : extends in the direction of the Z-axis)
wherein said line forms the oblong gas bubble (see above In re claim 1), and
wherein the ring has an intensity less than the intensity of the line allowing gas bubble formation (inherent, property of Bessel beams).
In re claim 3, Bernard discloses wherein the control unit wherein the control unit is programmed to drive the optical focusing system such that the focal plane of the cutting apparatus extends along the optical axis (Col. 8, Lines 10-19: “axis Z”), *above a desired position for the vertical cutting plane.
In re claim 4, Bernard discloses wherein the control unit wherein the control unit is programmed to drive the optical focusing system such that the focal plane of the cutting apparatus extends along the optical axis (Col. 8, Lines 10-19: “axis Z”), *below a desired position for the vertical cutting plane.
*The ability of the optical focusing system to move the focal plan along the optical axis means there will be a point at which the focal plane is situated above or below the desired position for the vertical cutting plane.
In re claim 5, Bernard discloses, wherein the control unit is further configured to drive the femtosecond laser source, the shaping system, the sweeping optical scanner, and the optical focusing system (see above In re claim 1), in order to produce at least one horizontal cutting plane extending perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 2; Horizontal cutting plane in XY direction is perpendicular to the optical axis (axis Z)).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (US 11,351,062) in view of Kalkbrenner (US 2022/0057329), in view of Lim et al. (Lim, Kang Yuan, et al. “Nonspherical laser-induced cavitation bubbles.” Physical Review E, vol. 81, no. 1, 14 Jan. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.81.016308.) and further in view of Raksi (US 9,427,356).
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Bernard) which is configured to successively produce horizontal and vertical cutting planes in order to form cubes of tissue (apparent; the repeated production of horizontal/vertical planes forms cube shaped sections of tissue)
wherein
the control unit drives the femtosecond laser source, the shaping system, the sweeping optical scanner, and the optical focusing system, in order to produce an initial horizontal cutting plane (Fig. 2; Col. 7, Lines 30-33), then
the control unit drives the femtosecond laser source, the shaping system, the sweeping optical scanner, and the optical focusing system, in order to produce a subsequent cutting plane (Col. 8, Lines 10-13), then
the control unit drives the femtosecond laser source, the shaping system, the sweeping optical scanner and the optical focusing system, in order to produce a final cutting plane (Col. 8, Lines 10-13; Note: It’s inherent that final position of the cornea would result in a final cutting plane).
Although the proposed combination yields the successive production of cutting planes, it does not yield the horizontal/vertical cutting planes (following the initial horizontal plane) being produced in the order required by the instant disclosure.
Specifically, the proposed combination does not yield:
where the subsequent cutting plane is at least one vertical cutting plane located above, along the optical axis, the initial horizontal cutting plane
where the final cutting plane is a final horizontal cutting plane above, along the optical axis, said and at least one vertical cutting plane.
Raksi discloses an analogous laser system (FIG. 3; Col. 5, Lines 56-65 ) with a control module (320) for controlling a pulsed laser (302), focusing system (310), processing unit (for laser pulse modulation (Col. 6, Lines 16-21)), and a laser scanner (Col. 7, Lines 4-7). The laser system delivers laser pulses to eye tissue causing the formation of cavitation bubbles (Col. 6, Lines 24-30).
Raksi further discloses a pulse delivery procedure that involves producing an initial horizontal cutting plane (FIG. 5a ; Col.7, Lines 13-15) followed by several vertical cutting planes (FIG. 5b; Col. 7, Lines 24-27 ) and then a final horizontal cutting plane (FIG. 5d; Lines 31-32).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting device taught by the proposed combination, to include the pulse delivery procedure taught by Raksi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because this type of pulse delivery procedure is known to increase effectiveness and efficiency while reducing side effects (Col. 8, Lines 50-3).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Bernard) wherein in order to produce a horizontal cutting plane (Fig. 2 ; horizontal cutting plane spans in the XY direction), the control unit (see above In re claim 1):
applies a multipoint phase mask to the shaping system (Col. 6, Lines 41-46) in order to produce a single multipoint modulated laser beam (Col. 8, Lines 33-34), wherein the multipoint phase mask is calculated to distribute the energy of the multipoint modulated laser beam into at least two impact points in the focal plane of the cutting apparatus (Col. 9, Lines 1-11),
controls the movement of the focusing system in order to make the focal plane of the cutting apparatus coincide with a desired depth for the horizontal cutting plane (Col. Lines 10-13),
activates the femtosecond laser source (inherent), and
drives the sweeping optical scanner in order to move the impact points of the single multipoint modulated laser beam along a movement path (Col. 10, Lines 44-55).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bernard et al. (US 11,351,062) in view of Kalkbrenner (US 2022/0057329), in view of Lim et al. (Lim, Kang Yuan, et al. “Nonspherical laser-induced cavitation bubbles.” Physical Review E, vol. 81, no. 1, 14 Jan. 2010, https://doi.org/10.1103/physreve.81.016308.), in view of Raksi (US 9,427,356) and further in view of Bartels et al. (US 7,576,907).
In re claim 8, the proposed combination yields
wherein in order to produce a vertical cutting plane, (see above In re claim 1), the control unit (see above In re claim 1):
applies a phase mask to the shaping system in order to produce a Bessel modulated laser beam
controls the movement of the focusing system in order to position the focal plane of the cutting apparatus above or below a desired depth for the vertical cutting plane
activates the femtosecond laser source; and
drives the sweeping scanner in order to move the impact point of the Bessel modulated laser beam along a movement path.
The proposed combination does not yield:
where the phase mask is a linear phase mask
Bartels discloses an analogous laser apparatus that uses a linear phase mask to shape laser pulses (Col. 2, Lines 6-9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cutting apparatus taught by the proposed combination, to include the use of a linear phase mask. One would have been motivated to make this modification both because linear phase masks are known in the art, and the result of the modification, shaping laser pulses, is reasonably predictable.
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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796