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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 01/07/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments filed on 01/07/2026 regarding the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation
While not necessarily unclear, it is conceivable that the following terms could be interpreted in ways other than the manner in which they are interpreted herein. Accordingly, Examiner seeks correction or confirmation of the following claim interpretations.
For examination purposes, “a sub-carrier signal” is being interpreted as a carrier signal that is used to modulate another carrier signal.
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, 3, 4, 13, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff et al. (US 2012/0136342), in view of Horvath et al. (US 2007/0043339), in view of Sun et al. (US 2003/0222324).
In re claim 1, Bischoff discloses a surgical system (FIG. 1: 2) comprising:
a laser (FIG. 5: S) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in laser pulses [0039];
a laser energy control system (15; [0039]: “laser pulse modulator”) configured to regulate an amount of electromagnetic energy of each laser pulse that exits the laser surgical system [0039, 0049]; and
a laser pulse controller ([0049]: “control unit”) configured to communicate control signals to the laser energy control system; and
wherein the control signals communicated by the laser pulse controller to the laser energy control system include a sub-carrier signal (FIG. 7: A; [0049]: “envelope”) that modulates the amount of electromagnetic energy of the laser pulses that exit the laser surgical systems (FIG.7; [0049])
wherein the sub-carrier signal is in a periodic pattern (FIG. 7);
wherein the control signals communicated by the laser pulse controller to the laser energy control system further include a threshold signal (maximum of A) representing a threshold power (SP; [0049]); .
wherein the control signals communicated by the laser pulse controller to the laser energy control system further include a maximum power signal (minimum of A) representing a maximum power (AP; [0049]);
wherein the sub-carrier signal oscillates between the threshold power and the maximum power to modulate an energy level of each laser pulse that exits the surgical system, without eliminating laser pulses, by varying the energy level between the threshold power and the maximum power (FIG. 7; [0049]),
Bischoff does not disclose
an adjustable input device configured to be actuated over an operating range;
wherein the subcarrier signal occupies a plurality of power levels between the maximum power and the threshold power;
wherein the operating range of the adjustable input device is configured to allow an operator to control dynamically the amount of energy of the laser pulses emitted from the laser that is output from the surgical system.
Horvath discloses an analogous laser surgical system (abstract) with an adjustable input device (20) configured to actuated over an operating range ([0034]: “initially depressed” to “fully depressed”). Horvath additionally discloses operating the adjustable input device to control features of the laser surgical system such as power and pulse duration [0027]. Horvath further discloses the input device being a foot pedal [0035].
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 surgical system of Bischoff to include an adjustable input device configured to be actuated over an operating range, wherein the operating range of the adjustable input device is configured to allow an operator to control dynamically the amount of energy of the laser pulses emitted from the laser that is output from the surgical system, as taught by Horvath. One would have been motivated to make this modification because using a surgical input device would allow an operator to control the surgical system while remaining focused on the surgical field. (Horvath, [0009]).
Regarding the limitations “wherein the subcarrier signal occupies a plurality of power levels between the maximum power and the threshold power”.
Sun discloses a laser system that like Bischoff, uses a pulse modulator (FIG. 7: 106, “pulse gating device E-O”) to modulate a shape and an energy profile of conventional laser pulses ([0053-0054]; [0065]: “modulation of energy via an E-o or an A-O device”). As shown in FIGS. 4-5, the conventional laser pulses (original pulses from CW mode laser) can be modulated using the pulse modulator. Accordingly, such a modulation creates a series of modulated laser pulses (52b1-52b8) with varying energy levels. Examiner notes that Suns “sub-carrier signal” would be whatever shape/curve is applied, via the pulse modulator, to create the modulated laser pulses ([0071]: “the shape can be accomplished by programming the voltage to an E-O or A-O”).
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 subcarrier signal of Bischoff to occupy a plurality of power levels between the maximum power and the threshold power, as taught by Sun. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would allow the laser to cut through materials with different thicknesses (Sun, [0071]). Examiner asserts that such a feature would be particularly useful in the context of eye surgery, given that the thickness of the cornea varies across its surface. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornea , Structure, [1]).
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Bischoff)
wherein the sub-carrier signal is in a square wave pattern (FIG. 7).
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Sun)
wherein the sub-carrier signal is in a sinusoidal pattern (FIG. 4).
In re claim 13, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Horvath)
wherein the adjustable input device comprises a foot pedal configured to be actuated over the operating range [0035].
In re claim 17, see above (In re claim 1).
Claim 7 is being rejected 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff (US 2012/0136342) in view of Horvath et al. (US 2007/0043339), in view of Sun et al. (US 2003/0222324), in view of Arnett et al. (US 6,135,995).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination does not yield wherein the maximum power is adjustable.
Arnett discloses an analogous pulse laser system used in medical applications (col. 1, lines 11-14). Arnett further discloses the maximum energy (col. 1 lines 64-67 – col. 2, lines 1-5: “threshold value”) of each laser pulse being adjustable (col. 2, lines 1-2: “user selected”).
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 surgical system of Bischoff, to include wherein the maximum power is adjustable, as taught by Arnett. One would have been motivated to make this modification because power requirements for different surgical applications may vary.
Claims 14 and 15 are being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff (US 2012/0136342) in view of Horvath et al. (US 2007/0043339), in view of Sun et al. (US 2003/0222324), in view of Holliday (US 2007/0213697).
In re claim 14, the proposed combination does not yield, further comprising an optical switching device configured to switch between
a first condition in which it allows laser pulses emitted from the laser to be output from the surgical system and
a second condition in which it prevents laser pulses emitted from the laser from being output from the surgical system.
Holliday discloses an analogous surgical laser system with an optical switching device (84) configured to switch between an open state ([0051]: “operation mode”) and a closed state ([0046]: “calibration mode”). Holliday further discloses the optical switching device comprising a shutter (84; [0042]) and a shutter motor (60; [0038]).
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 surgical system of Bischoff to include an optical switching device, an optical switching device configured to switch between a first condition in which it allows laser pulses emitted from the laser to be output from the surgical system and a second condition in which it prevents laser pulses emitted from the laser from being output from the surgical system, as taught by Holliday. One would have been motivated to make this modification both because optical switching devices are known in the art and the result of the modification, i.e. controlling the laser pulses, is reasonably predictable.
In re claim 15, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Holliday),
wherein the optical switching device comprises a shutter and a shutter motor (see above (In re claim 14)).
Claim 16 is being rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bischoff (US 2012/0136342), in view of Horvath et al. (US 2007/0043339), in view of Sun et al. (US 2003/0222324), in view of GRACE (US 2019/0015157).
In re claim 16, the proposed combination does not yield
wherein the laser energy control system comprises:
a waveplate;
a waveplate motor; and
a polarizer plate;
wherein the waveplate motor is configured to move the waveplate into different positions corresponding to different percentages of laser electromagnetic energy permitted to pass through the laser control system.
GRACE discloses an analogous laser system (abstract) with an energy control system
(FIG. 5, 415) comprising: a waveplate (420), polarizer (425), and a waveplate motor ([0060] : “motorized
rotational mount”). GRACE further discloses the ability of the energy control system (which includes a
waveplate motor) to control the amount/intensity of energy that passes through the system [0060].
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 surgical system of Bischoff to include the following elements: waveplate, waveplate motor, and polarizer plate; wherein the waveplate motor is configured to move the waveplate into different positions corresponding to different percentages of laser electromagnetic energy permitted to pass through the laser control system, as taught by GRACE. One would have been motivated to make this modification both because waveplates, waveplate motors and polarizer plates are known in the art and the result of the modification, i.e. controlling the amount of energy, is reasonably predictable.
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Tunnermann et al. (US 2008/0015662) discloses system (FIG. 1) for laser treatment of a biological material (abstract). The system uses a pulse selector (16) to modify a laser pulse sequence (14), creating a set of laser pulses (18) with varying intensities (FIG. 1).
Damasco et al. (US 6,080,148) discloses a laser device that selectively reduces the amount of laser energy provided during a surgical application (abstract).
Bukesov et al. (US 2021/0038304) discloses a method, device and system for adjusting a surgical laser based on the identified target (abstract).
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