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 have been fully considered and are persuasive. This is a second nonfinal office action.
Applicant argues:
At p. 4 to p. 7 regarding Schaller being incompatible with Smith.
Examiner response:
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Dichroic beam splitter is well known in the art for being integrated into an optical device for adding additional elements, such as light sources and detector 22, as shown in Smith, and an observation area as shown in Schaller. Smith teaches almost all the components of the instant application. It does not teach the dichroic beam splitter (70), which is only used for the addition of element 90 as shown in fig. 1 of the instant application.
Schaller teaches a dichroic beam splitter 16 (fig. 2 element 16), which reflects the light coming from the two light sources (elements 26 and 28) and it only allows longer-wave fluorescent light to pass through, meaning this dichroic beam splitter only allows light with wavelengths between 600 nm to 700 nm to reach to the observation area 22. This implies, the dichroic beam splitter 16 is identical to the dichroic beam splitter (70) the instant application.
Integrating dichroic beam splitter 16 of Schaller will not break the device of Smith (placing the dichroic beam splitter 16 of Schaller between elements 16 and 14 in Smith’s device). The addition of the dichroic beam splitter 16 will create a path for the observation area 22.
Thus, with all the above reasoning, Schaller is proper to combine with Smith.
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 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, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 21, 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20180353769 A1 (hereinafter Smith), in view of Schaller, K. et al., WO 2005111694 A1 (hereinafter Schaller), and in further in view US4412543A (hereinafter Vassiliadis).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches an apparatus (100) for monitoring and treating cataracts, the apparatus (100) comprising: “a monitoring light source (50) configured to monitor cataracts by emitting monitoring light in the wavelength range of 350 to 410 nm to excite fluorescence light in the cataracts” (fig. 6 element 4, using 360 nm excitation LED) “a treating light source (40) configured to treat cataracts by emitting treating light in the wavelength range of 400 to 570 nm to irradiate the cataracts” (fig. 6 element 2, using 470 nm) “a wavelength selection system (20) configured to monitor cataracts by selecting wavelengths of the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts” (fig. 6 element 20, para [0063] lines 5-11).
Smith does not teach a dichroic beam splitter (70) configured to reflect the monitoring light and the treating light along a common optical axis towards the cataracts and reflect the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts along the common optical axis towards the wavelength selection system (20) wherein the dichroic beam splitter (70) is arranged at 45 degrees to the common optical axis to allow light, which has wavelengths longer than wavelengths of the monitoring light, the treating light and the excited fluorescence light, to pass through to an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye.
Schaller, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches “a dichroic beam splitter (70) configured to reflect the monitoring light and the treating light along a common optical axis towards the cataracts and reflect the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts along the common optical axis towards the wavelength selection system (20) wherein the dichroic beam splitter (70) is arranged at 45 degrees to the common optical axis to allow light, which has wavelengths longer than wavelengths of the monitoring light, the treating light and the excited fluorescence light, to pass through to an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye” (fig. 2 element 16, p. 6 last para; note that element 16 is inserted between elements 16 and 14 in Smith’s device; the insertion of element 16 of Schaller in Smith’s device will teach the limitation “a dichroic beam splitter (70) configured to reflect the monitoring light and the treating light along a common optical axis towards the cataracts and reflect the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts along the common optical axis towards the wavelength selection system (20) wherein the dichroic beam splitter (70) is arranged at 45 degrees to the common optical axis to allow light, which has wavelengths longer than wavelengths of the monitoring light, the treating light and the excited fluorescence light, to pass through to an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye”; note that the observation of area 22 corresponds to the an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye; also based from fig. 2 of Schaller, element 16 is arranged at 45 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Schaller to Smith to have a dichroic beam splitter (70) configured to reflect the monitoring light and the treating light along a common optical axis towards the cataracts and reflect the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts along the common optical axis towards the wavelength selection system (20) wherein the dichroic beam splitter (70) is arranged at 45 degrees to the common optical axis to allow light, which has wavelengths longer than wavelengths of the monitoring light, the treating light and the excited fluorescence light, to pass through to an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye in order to include an observation area for observing and monitoring the sample.
Smith, when modified by Schaller, does not teach explicitly “an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye”.
Vassiliadis, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches teach “an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye” (col 9 lines 12-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vassiliadis to Smith, when modified by Schaller, to wherein “an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye” in order to check if the light is properly focus to the eye of the patient (col 9 lines 12-19).
Regarding claim 4, Smith teaches the apparatus (100) of claim 1, wherein the wavelength selection system (20) comprises any one or a combination of any one of a linear variable interference filter (para [0064] lines 4-5), a diffraction grating and a refractive prism.
Regarding claim 5, Smith teaches the apparatus (100) of claim 4, wherein the linear variable interference filter (22) comprises a tuneable bandpass interference filter operable in the wavelength range of 320 to 560 nm (para [0064] last sentence; the filter is tunable to all wavelengths in the device).
Regarding claim 6, Smith teaches the apparatus (100) of claim 5, wherein the tuneable bandpass interference filter comprises a wedge filter (22) (para [0063] lines 7-8).
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 4 to 6[[7]], wherein the apparatus (100) further comprises a detector (10) (fig. 1 PMT 22).
Regarding claim 9, Smith teaches the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 4 to 6, wherein the linear variable interference filter is operable from a fixed position on the common optical axis (fig. 1 shows element 20 is at fixed position).
Regarding claim 10, Smith teaches the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 4 to 6 and claim 9, wherein the apparatus (100) further comprises a one-dimensional or a two-dimensional array of detectors (10) (the PMT 22 has at least one-dimensional array).
Regarding claim 13, Smith teaches the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 1, 2 and 4 to 6, wherein the apparatus (100) is configured to simultaneously monitor cataracts using the monitoring light source (50) and treat cataracts using the treating light source (40) (para [0011]).
Regarding claim 14, Smith teaches the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 1, 2 and 4 to 6, the apparatus (100) further comprising a treating dichroic beam splitter (44) operable to reflect the emitted treating light onto the cataracts (fig. 1 element 12).
Regarding claim 21, Smith teaches a system (300) for use in monitoring and treating cataracts, the system comprising an apparatus (100) for monitoring and treating cataracts and an electronic device (200) (fig. 6), the apparatus (100) comprising: - “a monitoring light source (50) configured to monitor cataracts by emitting monitoring light in the wavelength range of 350 to 410 nm to excite fluorescence in the cataracts” (fig. 6 element 4, using 360 nm excitation LED)– “a treating light source (40) configured to treat cataracts by emitting treating light in the wavelength range of 400 to 570 nm to irradiate the cataracts” (fig. 6 element 2, using 470 nm)- “a wavelength selection system (20) configured to monitor cataracts by selecting wavelengths of the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts” (fig. 6 element 20, para [0063] lines 5-11) and –and “the electronic device (200) comprising a data storage and processing device (210) adapted for communication with the wavelength selection system (20) of the apparatus (100)” (fig. 7 shows data of the device and this means the device of Smith has electronic device (200) comprising a data storage and processing device (210) adapted for communication with the wavelength selection system (20)), and being configured: “(i) to manage the power supply of either or both of the monitoring light source (50) and the treating light source (40)” (para [0071] lines last sentence), “(ii) to control exposure times for exciting fluorescence light in the cataracts with the monitoring light source (50)” (para [0069] lines 1-6) “(iii) to control exposure times for irradiation of the cataracts with the treating light source (40)” (para [0071] lines 1-4), and “(iii) to select an operating mode of the apparatus (100)” (para [0069] last sentence).
Smith does not teach a dichroic beam splitter (70) configured to reflect the monitoring light and the treating light along a common optical axis towards the cataracts and reflect the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts along the common optical axis towards the wavelength selection system (20) wherein the dichroic beam splitter (70) is arranged at 45 degrees to the common optical axis to allow light, which has wavelengths longer than wavelengths of the monitoring light, the treating light and the excited fluorescence light, to pass through to an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye.
Schaller, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches “a dichroic beam splitter (70) configured to reflect the monitoring light and the treating light along a common optical axis towards the cataracts, and reflect the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts along the common optical axis towards the wavelength selection system (20),wherein the dichroic beam splitter (70) is arranged at 45 degrees to the common optical axis to allow light, which has wavelengths longer than wavelengths of the monitoring light, the treating light and the excited fluorescence light, to pass through to an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye; (fig. 2 element 16, p. 6 last para; note that element 16 is inserted between elements 16 and 14 in Smith’s device; the insertion of element 16 of Schaller in Smith’s device will teach the limitation “a dichroic beam splitter (70) configured to reflect the monitoring light and the treating light along a common optical axis towards the cataracts and reflect the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts along the common optical axis towards the wavelength selection system (20) wherein the dichroic beam splitter (70) is arranged at 45 degrees to the common optical axis to allow light, which has wavelengths longer than wavelengths of the monitoring light, the treating light and the excited fluorescence light, to pass through to an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye”; note that the observation of area 22 corresponds to the an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye; also based from fig. 2 of Schaller, element 16 is arranged at 45 degrees).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Schaller to Smith to have a dichroic beam splitter (70) configured to reflect the monitoring light and the treating light along a common optical axis towards the cataracts, and reflect the excited fluorescence light in the cataracts along the common optical axis towards the wavelength selection system (20),wherein the dichroic beam splitter (70) is arranged at 45 degrees to the common optical axis to allow light, which has wavelengths longer than wavelengths of the monitoring light, the treating light and the excited fluorescence light, to pass through to an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye in order to include an observation area for observing and monitoring the sample.
Smith, when modified by Schaller, does not teach explicitly “an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye”.
Vassiliadis, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches teach “an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye” (col 9 lines 12-19).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Vassiliadis to Smith, when modified by Schaller, to wherein “an operator of the apparatus (100) for a check on a patient's eye” in order to check if the light is properly focus to the eye of the patient (col 9 lines 12-19).
Regarding claim 22, Smith teaches the system (300) of claim 21, wherein the operating mode of the apparatus (100) is selected from – “a monitoring mode when the electronic device (200) manages and controls the power supply and the exposure time of the monitoring light source (50)” (para [0069] lines 1-3) or – “a treatment mode when the electronic device (200) manages and controls the power supply and the exposure time of the treating light source (40)” (para [0071]).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Schaller, and Vassiliadis, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Mega, A., et al., WO 2014181744 A1 (hereinafter Mega).
Regarding claim 2, the modified device of Smith teaches the apparatus (100) of claim 1, wherein the monitoring light source (50) comprises a non-lasing LED light source to excite fluorescence light in the cataracts (para [0061] col 2 lines 1-3).
The modified device of Smith does not disclose an operable to emit light in the wavelength range of 350 to 410 nm, preferably in the wavelength range of 360 to 370 nm and more preferably at 365 nm to excite fluorescence light.
Mega, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches an operable to emit light in the wavelength range of 350 to 410 nm, preferably in the wavelength range of 360 to 370 nm and more preferably at 365 nm to excite fluorescence light (p. 6 para 4 lines 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Mega to the modified device of Smith to have an operable to emit light in the wavelength range of 350 to 410 nm, preferably in the wavelength range of 360 to 370 nm and more preferably at 365 nm to excite fluorescence light in order to obtain a stable measurement (p. 5 para 2 last line).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Schaller, and Vassiliadis, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Kessel, L., et al., US 20110202114 A1 (hereinafter Kessel).
Regarding claim 3, the modified device of Smith does not teach the apparatus (100) of any of the preceding claims, wherein the treating light source (40) comprises a non-lasing LED light source (para [0061] lines 1-4) to irradiate the cataracts
The modified device of Smith does not teach an operable to emit light in the wavelength range of 400 to 570 nm, preferably in the wavelength range of 410 to 420 nm and more preferably at 415 nm.
Kessel, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches an operable to emit light in the wavelength range of 400 to 570 nm, preferably in the wavelength range of 410 to 420 nm and more preferably at 415 nm (para [0393]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kessel to the modified device of Smith to have an operable to emit light in the wavelength range of 400 to 570 nm, preferably in the wavelength range of 410 to 420 nm and more preferably at 415 nm in order to avoid or minimize cavitation, mechanical effects, acoustic effects, and/or thermal effects on molecules, components, or cells that do not form a target for the treatment (para [0388]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Schaller, and Vassiliadis, as applied to claim(s) 4-6 above, and in view of Watanabe, S., et al., US3973725A (hereinafter Watanabe).
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Smith does not teach the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 4 to 6, wherein the wavelength selection system (20) further comprises a linear drive operable to move the linear variable interference filter along an axis perpendicular to the common optical axis.
Watanabe, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 4 to 6, wherein the wavelength selection system (20) further comprises a linear drive operable to move the linear variable interference filter along an axis perpendicular to the common optical axis (col 4 lines 13-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kessel to the modified device of Smith to have the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 4 to 6, wherein the wavelength selection system (20) further comprises a linear drive operable to move the linear variable interference filter along an axis perpendicular to the common optical axis in order to undergo spectral analysis (col 4 lines 13-18).
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Schaller, and Vassiliadis, as applied to claim(s) 4-6 above, and in view of Kuang, C. et al., CN 104614318 A (hereinafter Kuang).
Regarding claim 11, Smith does not teach the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 4 to 6[[10]], wherein the wavelength selection system (20) further comprises a phase-sensitive detection system operable at the same pulse frequency as a pulse frequency of the monitoring light source (50) to separate wavelengths of the excited fluorescence light from wavelengths of ambient light.
Kuang, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 4 to 6, wherein the wavelength selection system (20) further comprises a phase-sensitive detection system operable at the same pulse frequency as a pulse frequency of the monitoring light source (50) to separate wavelengths of the excited fluorescence light from wavelengths of ambient light (fig. 1 dichroic mirror 17 reflecting light to the phase detection module 11 which corresponds to the wavelength selection system (20)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kuang to Smith, to have the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 4 to 6[[10]], wherein the wavelength selection system (20) further comprises a phase-sensitive detection system operable at the same pulse frequency as a pulse frequency of the monitoring light source (50) to separate wavelengths of the excited fluorescence light from wavelengths of ambient light in order to modulate light beam frequency of the first light source (p. 9 para 6 lines 5-7).
Regarding claim 12, Smith does not teach the apparatus (100) of claim 11, wherein the phase-sensitive detection system comprises a lock-in amplifier.
Kuang, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches the apparatus (100) of claim 11, wherein the phase-sensitive detection system comprises a lock-in amplifier (p. 5 para 9 line 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Kuang to Smith, to have the apparatus (100) of claim 11, wherein the phase-sensitive detection system comprises a lock-in amplifier in order to modulate light beam frequency of the first light source (p. 9 para 6 lines 5-7).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Schaller, and Vassiliadis, as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and in view of Luttrull, J., et al., US 20160287443 A1 (hereinafter Luttrull).
Regarding claim 15, the modified device of Smith does not teach the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 1,2 and 4 to 6, wherein the apparatus (100) further comprises a MEMS mirror system operable to move the emitted treating light around various parts of the cataract.
Luttrull, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 1,2 and 4 to 6, wherein the apparatus (100) further comprises a MEMS mirror system operable to move the emitted treating light around various parts of the cataract (para [0109] lines 1-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Luttrull to the modified device of Smith to have the apparatus (100) of any one of claims 1,2 and 4 to 6, wherein the apparatus (100) further comprises a MEMS mirror system operable to move the emitted treating light around various parts of the cataract in order to correctly reflect the laser on the retina of the patience (para [0109] lines 1-10).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith, Schaller, and Vassiliadis, as applied to claim(s) 22 above, and in view Buttenschoen, Kim K., John M. Girkin, and Daniel J. Daly. "Measurement and quantification of fluorescent changes in ocular tissue using a novel confocal instrument." Biophotonics: Photonic Solutions for Better Health Care IV. Vol. 9129. SPIE, 2014 (hereinafter Buttenschoen).
Regarding claim 23, the modified apparatus of Smith does not teach the system of claim 22, wherein the monitoring mode of the apparatus (100) comprises any one or a combination of any one of a spectral scan mode or a ratio scan mode.
Buttenschoen, from the same field of endeavor as Smith, teaches the system of claim 22, wherein the monitoring mode of the apparatus (100) comprises any one or a combination of any one of a spectral scan mode (this is shown in fig. 4) or a ratio scan mode.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Buttenschoen to the modified apparatus of Smith to have the system of claim 22, wherein the monitoring mode of the apparatus (100) comprises any one or a combination of any one of a spectral scan mode or a ratio scan mode in order to allow for non-invasive measurement of reflection and fluorescence from within the eye (p. 2 para 5 lines 1-2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. 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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights