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 filed on 06/15/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that neither Bischoff nor Sun discloses the sub carrier signal having “a frequency lower than the laser pulse repetition rate such that a sub-carrier cycle spans multiple laser pulses”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed in the Non-Final Rejection (03/13/2026, specifically In re claim 1), Bischoff discloses a subcarrier signal (FIG. 7: “A”; [0049]: “envelope”). Examiner asserts that said subcarrier signal has a lower frequency when compared to the pulse repetition rate of the laser pulses (P) exiting the laser surgical system [0049]. Specifically looking at FIG. 7, it can be seen that there are more pulses during time period “t” compared to sub carrier signal cycles (i.e., each individual square wave of the subcarrier 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 laser surgical system (FIG. 1: 2) comprising:
a laser (FIG. 5: S) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in laser pulses [0039] at a laser pulse repetition rate ([0049]: “pulse frequency”);
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 subcarrier signal as a frequency (cycles of “A” per unit time “t”) lower than the pulse laser repetition rate such that a sub-carrier cycle (single square pulse of “A”) spans a plurality of emitted laser pulses (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 laser 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 laser 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 laser 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).
The proposed combination also yields (all mapping directed to Bischoff),
wherein the control signals communicated by the laser pulse controller to the laser energy control system further include a frequency signal controlling a frequency of the sub-carrier signal (FIG. 7; [0049]; portion of “control signal” that controls sub carrier signal frequency, that is, a number of sub-carrier cycles per unit of time t);
wherein the control signals communicated by the laser pulse controller to the laser energy control system further include a duty ratio signal controlling a duty ratio of the sub-carrier signal (FIG. 7; [0049]: portion of “control signal” that that controls the subcarrier signals between “on” and “off periods);
wherein the duty ratio of the sub-carrier signal defines a ratio of a portion of a sub-carrier signal waveform above a central axis to a portion of the sub-carrier signal waveform below the central axis (FIG. 7, apparent as duty ratio is an art recognized term that is defined as the fraction of time that a signal is active, that is, “above a central axis”).
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
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
Prosecution Insights