The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 26, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 26, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 9 of the remarks, the applicant argues that “Jones fails to anticipate at least the above-emphasized elements relating to generating an energy parameter based on both an energy level and a pulse duration of the light emission”, as well as “using the resulting energy parameter as a unified control variable governing operation of the laser, thereby facilitating ’operation of the laser independently of direct user manipulation of the energy level and the pulse duration.’” The examiner respectfully disagrees.
However, it is important to first understand the interpretation of the claims. The processor’s steps begin with “obtain, via a user interface as a set of user selections, a configuration scheme comprising:”, which means that the first step of the processor’s process is to obtain a user input on a user interface relating to “a configuration scheme”. This “configuration scheme” comprises “a set of configuration parameters including at least an energy level for an intensity of the light emission and a pulse duration of the light emission by the laser;”. In other words, the user is providing input into a user interface to define the intensity and the pulse duration at which he/she desires the laser to operate.
Next, the processing steps recite “determine, based on the configuration scheme, an energy parameters associated with the light emission by the laser, wherein the energy parameters is generated based on a combination of the energy level and the pulse duration of the light emissions by the laser”, which under a broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) means that the processor takes the input that was provided by the user and, essentially, understands (i.e., determines) the inputted intensity and pulse duration which together make up “the energy parameter”. This section of the claim then states “and wherein the energy level is indicative of intensity of the light emission”, which doesn’t appear to add anything new to the claim since it already stated that “at least an energy level for an intensity of the light emission”, so it seems apparent already in the claim that “an energy level” is equated to “an intensity”.
Next, the processing steps recite “display, on the display, a first user interface object that is representative of the energy parameter”, which under a BRI means that the display shows something related to the energy parameter. And then “and is interactive to control the energy parameter”, which implies that presumably the object is interactive to control the energy parameter. And finally that the interactive control [of] the energy parameter is controllable “as a unified control variable”. It is noted that the specification never discusses “a unified control variable”, and never uses the words “unified” or “variable”. As such, it is not entirely clear what this portion of the claim amendment entails, which is addressed below in rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b).
Next and finally, the processing steps recite “control the laser based on the energy parameter”, where it clearly means that the laser operates based on the energy parameter, which is directly linked back to the user input that obtained a configuration parameters that includes an energy level for an intensity and a pulse duration. So up to this point, the system obtains user input and proceeds to “register” the input as specific intensity and pulse duration parameters to determine “an energy parameter”, it displays the energy parameter, and now it controls the laser based on that energy parameter.
The next newly added portion of the claim recites “wherein the energy parameter governs operation of the laser independently of direct user manipulation of the energy level and the pulse duration as separate control inputs”. This is unclear, because as explained above, the energy parameter is directly dependent on the first step of obtaining a configuration scheme is includes at least an energy level for an intensity and a pulse duration of the light emission by the laser, which according to the determining step is exactly what is used to “determine… an energy parameter”. Therefore, it is unclear and contradictory to claim that the energy parameters governs operation of the laser independently of direct user manipulation of the energy level and the pulse duration” either separately or not, when the user is required to provide direct input into the system for these parameters. This will be addressed below in rejections under 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b).
Therefore, according to the BRI of the claims as amended, and in light of the indefinite nature of certain claim aspects which are explicitly stated above, the BRI of the current claim set is that the user inputs a desired intensity and pulse duration, the system acknowledges these inputs and makes a determination of “an energy parameter” based on these inputs, the processor displays the energy parameter, and the system controls the laser based on these inputs/energy parameter. This is taught by Jones, however, in the interest of moving prosecution forward, new prior art has been discovered and incorporated into the following rejections based on the amendments and their intended meaning.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
First Paragraph
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 14-33 are rejected because the specification never discusses “a unified control variable”, and never uses the words “unified” or “variable”. As such, it is not entirely clear whether of not the applicant has possession of this claimed subject matter at the time the application was filed (i.e., it appears to be new matter).
All claims other than 14, 28 and 31 are rejected for their dependency on one of these claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Second Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 14-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 14-33 are rejected because it is unclear if “an energy level for an intensity of the light emission” means that “an energy level is an intensity”, or if the “an energy level” is something other than the intensity. For purposes of this action, it is assumed that this just means that “an energy level is an intensity”.
Claims 14-33 are rejected because the specification never discusses “a unified control variable”, and never uses the words “unified” or “variable”. As such, it is not entirely clear what this portion of the claim amendment entails.
Claims 14-33 are rejected because newly added portion of the claim that recites “wherein the energy parameter governs operation of the laser independently of direct user manipulation of the energy level and the pulse duration as separate control inputs” is unclear because the energy parameter is directly dependent on the first step of obtaining a configuration scheme is includes at least an energy level for an intensity and a pulse duration of the light emission by the laser, which according to the determining step is exactly what is used to “determine… an energy parameter”. Therefore, it is unclear and contradictory to claim that the energy parameters governs operation of the laser independently of direct user manipulation of the energy level and the pulse duration” either separately or not, when the user is required to provide direct input into the system for these parameters.
All claims other than 14, 28 and 31 are rejected for their dependency on one of these claims.
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.
Claims 14-17, 19-20, 24-26 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0276192) in view of Korman et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2005/0143793).
Regarding claims 14 and 31, Jones discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) that controls an electromagnetic energy output system (see Abstract). Jones teaches “a laser to provide light emission” (see claim 14, line 2 – “Typical embodiments include an electromagnetic energy output device such as a laser handpiece 285 and further include, for example, a laser actuator 290. The laser actuator 290 may take a form of, according to one embodiment, a foot-operated switch that interacts with the laser interface 265 in accordance with signals received from the processor 245 in order to control the electromagnetic energy output device” – see paragraph 43). It is noted that “for endourological surgery” is intended use and does not structurally limit the claimed system or laser in any definitive way (Section 2114(II) of the MPEP states (with emphasis in the original), “’Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”; and this same section also states, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.”). Figure 13 also illustrates a processor (see numeral 245), a GUI display 275 and GUI 270 which is an input device, as well as both working and program memory 250 and 255 (reading on claim 14, lines 3-7).
Regarding “obtain, via user interface as a set of user selections, a configuration scheme”, “The screen of FIG. 1 (and, as another example, FIG. 2) comprises a PROCEDURES icon 175, which when pressed, may bring up a procedures screen, an example of which is shown in FIG. 9… In the illustrated example, the device is set at a power level of 5.0 W in a pulse mode with 20 ms pulse length and a 20 ms pulse interval.” As stated in paragraph 37, “Pressing one of the procedure icons may adjust or "preset" the electromagnetic energy output device according to settings listed on that procedure icon. For example, pressing (i.e., touching) a SURGERY icon 181 in FIG. 9 may set the electromagnetic energy output device to a power level of 1.2 watts in a continuous wave mode with a total energy to be delivered of 1.1 joules.” Therefore, this teaches that the processor is configured to obtain a configuration scheme (i.e., a procedure) and, based on the chosen procedure, the system utilizes a preset output power level (reading on “an energy level” in the claim) and in continuous wave mode which is changed from the original “20/20” which paragraph 36 states as meaning “20 ms pulse length and a 20 ms pulse interval” (all of which reads on “a pulse duration”). The total energy provided by the system is inherently a setting that is determined based on a power and a pulse duration (see paragraph 31, which states that “For example, at a power level of 0.5 watts, the electromagnetic energy source would operate for a total of 10 seconds to deliver 5 joules of energy while the foot switch is on. It should be understood that the foot switch may be turned on for, as an example, five separated two-second periods for the total electromagnetic energy delivered to reach 5 joules.”).
These various parameters are displayed on the display as shown in Figure 9, and also can be shown on the display in the manner shown in Figs. 1 and/or 2 (noting that Figs. 1-2 and 9A are interpreted to read on and/or comprise “a first user interface object”). As such, this reads on the “display, on the display, a first user interface object that is representative of the energy parameter”. Additionally, it is noted that, for example, numerals 40 and 45 of Figure 1 are “interactive to control the energy parameter”, but do not change more than the one parameter at a time (i.e., “a unified control variable” and “wherein the energy parameter governs operation of the laser independently of direct user manipulation of the energy level and the pulse duration as separate control inputs”).
As stated in paragraph 37 of Jones, “An embodiment of the procedures screen further comprises a PRESETS field… Each of several presets may comprise a particular combination of values for each of several parameters for controlling the electromagnetic energy output system according to a particular procedure. Parameters may include power level, total energy level, energy mode, pulse length, and pulse interval, among others” (emphasis added, also see paragraphs 36-38 in full for their overall descriptions). And in paragraph 47 of Jones, “a user may adapt one or more operational settings of the electromagnetic energy output system according to unique criteria such as personal preference or experience, in a convenient and intuitive manner, thereby enhancing versatility of the electromagnetic energy output system.” While one of the operational settings to be adapted in Jones is the pulse length, and Jones appreciates that there is a relationship between pulse length and power to reach total energy delivered (see paragraph 31). However, Jones does not explicitly state that “intensity” is adjustable or that it is one of the presets, nor that “the energy parameter [is] a unified control variable” or that the energy parameter governs the laser independently of direct user manipulation of the energy level (i.e., intensity) and the pulse duration as separate control inputs.”
Korman teaches a system that includes an optical head 12 which produces electromagnetic radiation used in the treatment of medical conditions (see paragraphs 118-119 and Figure 1). As shown in Figure 3, the system includes a user interface 66, a CPU 62 and a dosage control 68, among other features. Figures 16A-E illustrate example user interface screens. Based on the issue that the patient presents with, Fig. 16C illustrates a recommended dose (see paragraph 183). Based on a maximum recommended dose (i.e., MED) the “system 311 then determines automatically the intensity and duration of radiation to apply” (see last sentence in paragraph 183). “Alternatively, the operator may use a dose control 550 and a duration control 552 to manually increase or decrease the intensity and/or duration of the radiation dose. If a MED level is set, and the operator changes the intensity, for example, system 311 will automatically decrease the duration of exposure, and vice versa. For safety reasons, the system preferably limits the dosage to a predetermined maximum, typically 8 MEDs” (see paragraph 184). This teaches that the optical treatment system of Korman provides an automated preset for intensity and duration of radiation, which can then be modified by the user by changing either the intensity or the duration of a radiation dose while the system automatically then adjusts the other of the intensity or the duration of the dose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a system that allows changing of intensity or duration of a radiation dose while the system then automatically changes the other of the intensity or duration, as taught by Korman, and to utilize this setting manipulation within the system of Jones, which further improves on Jones’ goal of a “graphical user interface [that] may provide for a quick, convenient, and easy means to modify operating modes”, since this allows for user adjustment without having to perfect each individual optical parameter, thereby making Jones’ system even quicker and easier to modify the operating modes.
Regarding claim 15, Jones teaches “The illustrated embodiment further includes a simulated analog representation 60 (as, for example, with a thermometer, speedometer and the like) of the power level relative to a maximum possible power level setting” (see paragraph 23 and Figures 1-2 and 9A).
Regarding claims 16 and 32, based on the rejections above under 35 USC 112(b), it is unclear the distinction between “a configuration scheme” and “an operational environment” in the instant application’s disclosure, and therefore also within the claims. As stated in paragraph 29 of PGPUB 2024/0148437 (representative of the original specification), “The operational environment thus delivers the appropriate energy parameter for the endourological area which is to receive the light application” (emphasis added). This is the same function as claimed in the independent claims for the claimed ”configuration scheme”. Therefore, the “operational environment” in claim 16 is rejected over Jones for the same reasons described for the independent claims in relation to the ”configuration scheme” (see Figure 9 and paragraphs 36-38).
Regarding claim 17, Jones teaches “The illustrated embodiment further includes a simulated analog representation 60 (as, for example, with a thermometer, speedometer and the like) of the power level relative to a maximum possible power level setting” (see paragraph 23 and Figures 1-2 and 9A). As stated in paragraph 38, “For example, pressing the SURGERY icon 181 may display the screen shown in FIG. 9A”.
Regarding claim 19, it is noted that Figure 9A, which is displayed upon selecting an operational environment (e.g., “Surgery” in the example of paragraph 38), a user interface object 176 illustrates the representative operational environment.
Regarding claims 20 and 33, it is noted that the claims do not distinguish that a “mode of use” is distinct from either one of the claimed “operational environment” nor the “configuration scheme”. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as described for the configuration scheme of the independent claims, and as outlined in the rejection of claim 16. As stated in paragraph 32 of the PGPUB of the instant application, “one or more modes of use, including Coagulation, Section, Ablation, and/or Prostate”, which is correlated to those options shown in Figure 9 of Jones (i.e., coagulation shown in the bottom two slots, which is not an specific operational environment as illustrated by Gingivectomy or Frenectomy). Therefore, Jones reads on each of an operational environment and a mode of use being selectable. In a second interpretation of Jones, it is noted that “The illustrated graphical user interface further includes an energy mode icon 50, which both indicates and controls a mode of electromagnetic energy generation of the electromagnetic energy source” (see paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 24, Figure 1 illustrates that a given service energy level 35 is displayed and a given service pulse duration 30 is displayed. “[T]he illustrated embodiment further includes an average power indicator 115 that may display an average power level according to the power level of the electromagnetic energy source (shown by the power level indicator 55), the pulse interval (shown in the pulse interval icon 25) and the pulse length (shown in the pulse length icon 30)” (see paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 25, “The implementation shown in FIG. 1 further includes a total energy level icon 35, which, in the indicated implementation, may function as both a total energy level indicator and as an electromagnetic energy control icon. As a total energy level indicator, the total energy level icon 35 may display (depending upon context as described infra with reference to FIG. 5) an amount of electromagnetic energy already generated” (see paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 26, Jones teaches that “a user may be presented with a screen similar to that shown in FIG. 12, which may permit the user to select, for example, a display of operating time” (see numeral 230 in Figure 12).
Claims 22-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Korman as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yang (US Patent Pub. No. 2019/0110845).
Regarding claims 22-23, Jones in combination with Korman is described above with respect to claim 14. It is noted that Jones does not explicitly state that there is a user interface object representative of a frequency parameter, although it is noted that in Figure 1 of Jones there is a pulse interval 25 and a pulse length 30, which arguably provide an indication of frequency. However, assuming arguendo that this is not considered sufficient to read on the subject matter of claim 22, Yang teaches “a method of controlling a laser source to deliver laser energy through a medical device” (see Abstract). Paragraph 40 states that “As shown in FIG. 3A, user interface 40 on laser control unit 24 may display a first laser mode 70 and a second laser mode 72. The two laser modes 70, 72 may vary depending on the procedure being performed, and each laser mode may vary based on laser energy 74, frequency 76, pulse width 78, etc.” In other words, Yang explicitly teaches display and modification of laser frequency as a parameter in the control of a surgical laser device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing the invention to display and allow adjustment of frequency, among other parameter, as taught by Yang, and to include this adjustability in the system and methods of Jones, because “the laser energy may include different adjustable parameters based on the type of laser energy” (see paragraph 41) and “The shape and/or orientation of the laser energy may be modified based on the type of medical procedure” (see paragraph 35), illustrating that there are a multitude of laser parameters that may be desirable to allow adjustability for in a laser system (i.e., frequency, beam shape, etc.) and these may depend on multiple different factors (e.g., the type of medical procedure), and adding and including these different parameters increases utility of any laser system.
Regarding claim 27, it is re-iterated that Jones does not explicitly state that there is a user interface object representative of a frequency parameter, although it is noted that in Figure 1 of Jones there is a pulse interval 25 and a pulse length 30, which arguably provide an indication of frequency. Meanwhile, Yang teaches explicitly to provide “frequency” as an adjustable parameter. See above rejection of claims 22 and 23 for further detail and motivation to combine. Furthermore, it is noted that Jones teaches an average power 115 and a total power 55, which are indicative of the power of light emitted by the laser during the use of the laser. Paragraph 29 states that the “average power indicator 115 that may display an average power level according to the power level of the electromagnetic energy source (shown by the power level indicator 55), the pulse interval (shown in the pulse interval icon 25) and the pulse length (shown in the pulse length icon 30)”, which means that it is based on the energy level and frequency parameters, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by the combination with Yang, an explicit adjustment to frequency would change the average and total power delivered.
Claims 18, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Korman as applied to claims 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Mitchell (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0163715).
Regarding claims 18 and 21, Jones in combination with Korman is described above with respect to claim 16 and 20. Jones illustrates in Figure 1 the current settings and outputs of the laser, and is not explicitly stated as being effective working and/or optimization zones.
Mitchell teaches an exemplary simple slide bar user interface with dynamic pulsing, in accordance with embodiments of the present invention (see paragraph 39 and Figure 29). “The laser system has a user interface 410 to adjust system parameters and to control the laser energy emission. The user interface 410 is in communication with the controller 420. The controller operates the laser resonator 430 to provide the appropriate output selected via the user interface 410” (see paragraph 143). As stated in paragraph 286, “FIG. 29 illustrates a user input device in the form of a set of touch screen sliders…. For any inter-related parameter dependencies, for example q-switch pulse amplitude and q-switch period, the controller would determine the range limits and/or the mix of settings to achieve the desired outcomes as selected by the user.” By the controller determining and setting the range limits, this reads on a determination of “a first zone indicative of effective working”. By the controller determining a setting “the mix of settings to achieve the desired outcomes”, this reads on a determination of “a second zone indicative of optimization”. It is noted that Figure 29 illustrates a user interface in which “the range limits” are shown for power (e.g. low to high), thermal/dual mode (e.g., cold to hot), and tissue type, and an optimized zone is clearly shown/set for power and thermal/dual mode at an appropriate location along the slider.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include display of not the full range of laser operation but the system determined range limits for the desired outcome, and to show the system optimized setting for the desired outcome, as taught by Mitchell, within the system and methods of Jones, thereby increase ease of use for an operator by limiting the displayed range to only be within that which is of importance for the current operation.
Regarding claim 28, Jones discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) that controls an electromagnetic energy output system (see Abstract). Jones teaches “a laser to provide light emission” (see claim 14, line 2 – “Typical embodiments include an electromagnetic energy output device such as a laser handpiece 285 and further include, for example, a laser actuator 290. The laser actuator 290 may take a form of, according to one embodiment, a foot-operated switch that interacts with the laser interface 265 in accordance with signals received from the processor 245 in order to control the electromagnetic energy output device” – see paragraph 43). It is noted that “for endourological surgery” is intended use and does not structurally limit the claimed system or laser in any definitive way (Section 2114(II) of the MPEP states (with emphasis in the original), “’Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”; and this same section also states, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.”). Figure 13 also illustrates a processor (see numeral 245), a GUI display 275 and GUI 270 which is an input device, as well as both working and program memory 250 and 255 (reading on claim 14, lines 3-7).
Regarding “obtain, via user interface as a set of user selections, a configuration scheme”, “The screen of FIG. 1 (and, as another example, FIG. 2) comprises a PROCEDURES icon 175, which when pressed, may bring up a procedures screen, an example of which is shown in FIG. 9… In the illustrated example, the device is set at a power level of 5.0 W in a pulse mode with 20 ms pulse length and a 20 ms pulse interval.” As stated in paragraph 37, “Pressing one of the procedure icons may adjust or "preset" the electromagnetic energy output device according to settings listed on that procedure icon. For example, pressing (i.e., touching) a SURGERY icon 181 in FIG. 9 may set the electromagnetic energy output device to a power level of 1.2 watts in a continuous wave mode with a total energy to be delivered of 1.1 joules.” Therefore, this teaches that the processor is configured to obtain a configuration scheme (i.e., a procedure) and, based on the chosen procedure, the system utilizes a preset output power level (reading on “an energy level” in the claim) and in continuous wave mode which is changed from the original “20/20” which paragraph 36 states as meaning “20 ms pulse length and a 20 ms pulse interval” (all of which reads on “a pulse duration”). The total energy provided by the system is inherently a setting that is determined based on a power and a pulse duration (see paragraph 31, which states that “For example, at a power level of 0.5 watts, the electromagnetic energy source would operate for a total of 10 seconds to deliver 5 joules of energy while the foot switch is on. It should be understood that the foot switch may be turned on for, as an example, five separated two-second periods for the total electromagnetic energy delivered to reach 5 joules.”).
These various parameters are displayed on the display as shown in Figure 9, and also can be shown on the display in the manner shown in Figs. 1 and/or 2 (noting that Figs. 1-2 and 9A are interpreted to read on and/or comprise “a first user interface object”). As such, this reads on the “display, on the display, a first user interface object that is representative of the energy parameter”. Additionally, it is noted that, for example, numerals 40 and 45 of Figure 1 are “interactive to control the energy parameter”, but do not change more than the one parameter at a time (i.e., “a unified control variable” and “wherein the energy parameter governs operation of the laser independently of direct user manipulation of the energy level and the pulse duration as separate control inputs”).
As stated in paragraph 37 of Jones, “An embodiment of the procedures screen further comprises a PRESETS field… Each of several presets may comprise a particular combination of values for each of several parameters for controlling the electromagnetic energy output system according to a particular procedure. Parameters may include power level, total energy level, energy mode, pulse length, and pulse interval, among others” (emphasis added, also see paragraphs 36-38 in full for their overall descriptions). And in paragraph 47 of Jones, “a user may adapt one or more operational settings of the electromagnetic energy output system according to unique criteria such as personal preference or experience, in a convenient and intuitive manner, thereby enhancing versatility of the electromagnetic energy output system.” While one of the operational settings to be adapted in Jones is the pulse length, and Jones appreciates that there is a relationship between pulse length and power to reach total energy delivered (see paragraph 31). However, Jones does not explicitly state that “intensity” is adjustable or that it is one of the presets, nor that “the energy parameter [is] a unified control variable” or that the energy parameter governs the laser independently of direct user manipulation of the energy level (i.e., intensity) and the pulse duration as separate control inputs.”
Korman teaches a system that includes an optical head 12 which produces electromagnetic radiation used in the treatment of medical conditions (see paragraphs 118-119 and Figure 1). As shown in Figure 3, the system includes a user interface 66, a CPU 62 and a dosage control 68, among other features. Figures 16A-E illustrate example user interface screens. Based on the issue that the patient presents with, Fig. 16C illustrates a recommended dose (see paragraph 183). Based on a maximum recommended dose (i.e., MED) the “system 311 then determines automatically the intensity and duration of radiation to apply” (see last sentence in paragraph 183). “Alternatively, the operator may use a dose control 550 and a duration control 552 to manually increase or decrease the intensity and/or duration of the radiation dose. If a MED level is set, and the operator changes the intensity, for example, system 311 will automatically decrease the duration of exposure, and vice versa. For safety reasons, the system preferably limits the dosage to a predetermined maximum, typically 8 MEDs” (see paragraph 184). This teaches that the optical treatment system of Korman provides an automated preset for intensity and duration of radiation, which can then be modified by the user by changing either the intensity or the duration of a radiation dose while the system automatically then adjusts the other of the intensity or the duration of the dose.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to provide a system that allows changing of intensity or duration of a radiation dose while the system then automatically changes the other of the intensity or duration, as taught by Korman, and to utilize this setting manipulation within the system of Jones, which further improves on Jones’ goal of a “graphical user interface [that] may provide for a quick, convenient, and easy means to modify operating modes”, since this allows for user adjustment without having to perfect each individual optical parameter, thereby making Jones’ system even quicker and easier to modify the operating modes.
While Jones illustrates in Figure 1 the current settings and outputs of the laser, but does not teach a first and second zone of effective working and optimization, respectively.
Mitchell teaches an exemplary simple slide bar user interface with dynamic pulsing, in accordance with embodiments of the present invention (see paragraph 39 and Figure 29). “The laser system has a user interface 410 to adjust system parameters and to control the laser energy emission. The user interface 410 is in communication with the controller 420. The controller operates the laser resonator 430 to provide the appropriate output selected via the user interface 410” (see paragraph 143). It is emphasized here that Mitchell teaches the ability to choose a tissue type, which in this rejection of claim 28 is interpreted to be “an operational environment” (see Figure 29). As stated in paragraph 286, “FIG. 29 illustrates a user input device in the form of a set of touch screen sliders…. For any inter-related parameter dependencies, for example q-switch pulse amplitude and q-switch period, the controller would determine the range limits and/or the mix of settings to achieve the desired outcomes as selected by the user.” By the controller determining and setting the range limits, this reads on a determination of “a first zone indicative of effective working”. By the controller determining a setting “the mix of settings to achieve the desired outcomes”, this reads on a determination of “a second zone indicative of optimization”. It is noted that Figure 29 illustrates a user interface in which “the range limits” are shown for power (e.g. low to high), thermal/dual mode (e.g., cold to hot), and an optimized zone is clearly shown/set for power and thermal/dual mode at an appropriate location along the slider.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include display of not the full range of laser operation but the system determined range limits for the desired outcome, and to show the system optimized setting for the desired outcome, as taught by Mitchell, within the system and methods of Jones, thereby increase ease of use for an operator by limiting the displayed range to only be within that which is of importance for the current operation, and allowing for an additional parameter of tissue type to be used in the system determining the proper parameters for the desired outcome, thereby increasing utility of the overall system.
Claims 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Korman and Mitchell as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 29, Jones in combination with Korman and Mitchell is described above with respect to claim 28. It is noted that Jones does not explicitly state that there is a user interface object representative of a frequency parameter, although it is noted that in Figure 1 of Jones there is a pulse interval 25 and a pulse length 30, which arguably provide an indication of frequency.
However, assuming arguendo that this is not considered sufficient to read on the subject matter of claim 22, Yang teaches “a method of controlling a laser source to deliver laser energy through a medical device” (see Abstract). Paragraph 40 states that “As shown in FIG. 3A, user interface 40 on laser control unit 24 may display a first laser mode 70 and a second laser mode 72. The two laser modes 70, 72 may vary depending on the procedure being performed, and each laser mode may vary based on laser energy 74, frequency 76, pulse width 78, etc.” In other words, Yang explicitly teaches display and modification of laser frequency as a parameter in the control of a surgical laser device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing the invention to display and allow adjustment of frequency, among other parameter, as taught by Yang, and to include this adjustability in the system and methods of Jones as combined with Mitchell, because “the laser energy may include different adjustable parameters based on the type of laser energy” (see paragraph 41) and “The shape and/or orientation of the laser energy may be modified based on the type of medical procedure” (see paragraph 35), illustrating that there are a multitude of laser parameters that may be desirable to allow adjustability for in a laser system (i.e., frequency, beam shape, etc.) and these may depend on multiple different factors (e.g., the type of medical procedure), and adding and including these different parameters increases utility of any laser system.
Regarding claim 30, it is noted that the slide bar in the GUI displayed image of Yang illustrates a range for frequency in Hz.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES KISH whose telephone number is (571)272-5554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00a - 6p 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/JAMES KISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
