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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 7-8, 10 and 15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 Ln 2, please amend to --an object, [[which]] the processing apparatus comprises a--.
Claim 1 Ln 4, please amend to --in or on the object, the method comprising:--.
Claim 1 Ln 19, please amend to --and [[the]] an associated adjustment of the--.
Claim 3 Ln 2, please amend to --to the points of intersections--.
Claim 4 Ln 2, please amend to --to the points of intersections--.
Claim 7 Ln 1, 3 and 5, please amend to --the variable focus adjusting device--.
Claim 7 Ln 3, please amend to --to [[the]] a radiation direction--.
Claim 8 Ln 1, 3 and 5, please amend to --the variable focus adjusting device--.
Claim 8 Ln 2, please amend to --to [[the]] a radiation direction--.
Claim 10 Ln 2, please amend to --the variable focus adjusting device--.
Claim 15, please amend to -- A computer program including commands, which cause [[a]] the material processing apparatus to execute the method steps according to claim 1the material processing apparatus comprising:
at least one eye surgical laser for the treatment of a human or animal eye and
a contact element fixable thereto.--
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(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 1-16 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 Ln 3-4 states the limitation "processing laser radiation”. This phrase appears to be a translational error and the original meaning has been lost. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --[[processing]] laser radiation--. Subsequent iterations also require amendment (Ln 6-7, 8).
Claim 1 Ln 11 states the limitation "by means of radiation of measurement laser radiation”. This phrase appears to be a translational error and the original meaning has been lost. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --by means of the laser radiation--. Subsequent iterations also require amendment to --[[measurement]] laser radiation--, (Ln 12, 14-15, 16-17, Claim 5 Ln 1-2, Claim 6 Ln 1-2, Claim 7 Ln 2, Claim 8 Ln 3,
Claim 1 Ln 18 states the limitation "a position of intersections on the contact surface”. It is unclear how the position of intersections relates to the rest of the terms/structures of the claim. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as -- a position of intersections of the focused laser radiation on the contact surface--.
Claim 3 Ln 1-2 states the limitation "polynomials, in particular a polynomial line, are adapted”. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. This example and/or preference leads to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as only so limited by polynomials.
Claim 11 Ln 1 states the limitation "finding an intersection,”. It is unclear if this intersection is distinct from the position of intersections of claim 1 Ln 18. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --finding [[an]] a position of intersection of the position of intersections a density of scan points in [[the]] a vicinity of the position of intersection is increased--.
Claim 12 Ln 1-3 states the limitation "the measurement radiation… the processing laser radiation”. It is unclear what the difference is between these two considering the translational issues identified above for claim 1. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as the same laser.
Claim 14 Ln 1-2 states the limitation "in particular”. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. This example and/or preference leads to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. Therefore, the scope of the claim is indeterminate. For examination, the limitation was interpreted as --[[A]] The material processing apparatuscomprising:
at least one eye surgical laser configured for [[the]] treatment of a human or animal eye[[,]] and
[[a]] the contact element fixable thereto[[,]];
wherein the material processing apparatus performs the method according to claim 1--.
Claims 2, 4-10, 13 and 15-16 are rejected for their at least their dependence upon claim 1
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
-(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
-(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-6 and 12-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1), 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bischoff; Mark et al. US 20080078752 A1, hereinafter Bischoff.
Regarding claim 1, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) a method for preparing a material processing apparatus (1) for material processing by generating optical breakthroughs in or on an object (2),the material processing apparatus comprises a variable, three-dimensionally acting focus adjusting device (6) for focusing processing laser radiation on various locations in or on the object, the method comprising:
wherein a contact element (19) to be fitted onto the object is attached to the material processing apparatus [0051], wherein the contact element is transparent to the processing laser radiation, comprises a contact surface (18) on its side to be fitted onto the object, and an entry surface (19) for the processing laser radiation on its side facing the material processing apparatus [0049],
wherein a shape of the contact surface and/or entry surface is determined by means of radiation of measurement laser radiation onto the contact surface and/or entry surface before the processing of the object [0016], in that
the measurement laser radiation is focused near or on the contact surface and/or entry surface by means of the variable focus adjusting device, wherein an energy density of the focused measurement laser radiation is too low for generating an optical breakthrough [0021-0022],
wherein radiation backscattered or back-reflected from the focus of the measurement laser radiation is confocally detected [0023],
wherein a position of intersections on the contact surface and/or entry surface is determined from the confocally detected radiation and the associated adjustment of the variable focus adjusting device [0024-0025], and
wherein a three-dimensional surface model is adapted to the determined position of the intersections, wherein the three-dimensional shape of the contact surface and/or of the entry surface is provided by the surface model [0026].
Regarding claim 5, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) the measurement laser radiation is focused near or on the contact surface and/or the entry surface according to a preset scan strategy ([0021-0026] discloses a preset scan strategy).
Regarding claim 6, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) focus points of the measurement laser radiation are uniformly distributed in a spatial area, in which the contact surface and/or the entry surface are expected, according to the preset scan strategy ([0021] discloses focusing in an area where the contact surface is expected).
Regarding claim 12, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) the measurement laser radiation is provided from a laser radiation source (3) also provided for generating the processing laser radiation [0042-0043].
Regarding claim 13, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) the material processing apparatus is prepared for an eye laser treatment [0042].
Regarding claim 14, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) the material processing apparatus, in particular with comprising:
at least one eye surgical laser (3) configured for treatment of a human or animal eye [0042] and
the contact element (19) fixable thereto [0051];
wherein the material processing apparatus is formed to perform a performs the method according to claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 15, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) a computer program (“control program” [0034]) including commands, which cause the material processing apparatus to execute the method steps according to claim 1[0034] (see claim 1 above), with the material processing apparatus comprising:
at least one eye surgical laser (3) for the treatment of a human or animal eye [0042] and
a contact element (19) fixable thereto [0051].
Regarding claim 16, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) a non-transitory computer-readable medium (“control device” [0034]), on which the computer program according to claim 15 is stored (see claim 15 above).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 and 7-11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, Bischoff discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that a grid structure is provided by the position of the intersections on the contact surface and/or the entry surface ,and wherein polygons are adapted to the grid structure as the three-dimensional surface model. Instead, Bischoff is silent regarding the structure shape.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step above. Although Bischoff discloses a method of preparing a material processing apparatus, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bischoff to incorporate the details of that a grid structure is provided by the position of the intersections on the contact surface and/or the entry surface ,and wherein polygons are adapted to the grid structure as the three-dimensional surface model. Instead, Bischoff is silent regarding the structure shape, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 3, Bischoff discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed, as set forth above for Claim 1 except fails to explicitly state that polynomials, in particular a polynomial line, are adapted to the intersections on the contact surface and/or the entry surface.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step above. Although Bischoff discloses a method of preparing a material processing apparatus, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bischoff to incorporate the details of that polynomials, in particular a polynomial line, are adapted to the intersections on the contact surface and/or the entry surface, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 4, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) Zernike polynomials or a Fourier series are adapted to the intersections on the contact surface and/or the entry surface as the three-dimensional surface model.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step above. Although Bischoff discloses a method of preparing a material processing apparatus, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bischoff to incorporate the details of that Zernike polynomials or a Fourier series are adapted to the intersections on the contact surface and/or the entry surface as the three-dimensional surface model, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 7, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) the focus adjusting device is adjusted to an x-y-position for focusing the measurement laser radiation, which is located in a surface situated perpendicularly to the radiation direction of the focus adjusting device, and multiple focus points are scanned along a z-axis, which is located on a depth axis with respect to the focus adjusting device , in this x-y-position according to the preset scan strategy, wherein multiple different x-y-positions are iteratively measured with respectively subsequent scanning along the z-axis according to the preset scan strategy.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step above. Although Bischoff discloses a method of preparing a material processing apparatus, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bischoff to incorporate the details of that the focus adjusting device is adjusted to an x-y-position for focusing the measurement laser radiation, which is located in a surface situated perpendicularly to the radiation direction of the focus adjusting device, and multiple focus points are scanned along a z-axis, which is located on a depth axis with respect to the focus adjusting device , in this x-y-position according to the preset scan strategy, wherein multiple different x-y-positions are iteratively measured with respectively subsequent scanning along the z-axis according to the preset scan strategy, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) the focus adjusting device is adjusted to a z-position, which is located in a depth axis situated parallel to the radiation direction of the focus adjusting device for focusing the measurement laser radiation, and multiple different x-y-positions, which are located in an x-y-surface situated perpendicularly to the radiation direction of the focus adjusting device , are scanned in this z-position according to a pattern, a spiral and/or concentric circles according to the preset scan strategy, wherein multiple different z-positions are iteratively measured with respectively subsequent scanning of the x-y-surface according to the preset scan strategy.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step above. Although Bischoff discloses a method of preparing a material processing apparatus, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bischoff to incorporate the details of that the focus adjusting device is adjusted to a z-position, which is located in a depth axis situated parallel to the radiation direction of the focus adjusting device for focusing the measurement laser radiation, and multiple different x-y-positions, which are located in an x-y-surface situated perpendicularly to the radiation direction of the focus adjusting device , are scanned in this z-position according to a pattern, a spiral and/or concentric circles according to the preset scan strategy, wherein multiple different z-positions are iteratively measured with respectively subsequent scanning of the x-y-surface according to the preset scan strategy, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) one or more helix curves are scanned according to the preset scan strategy.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step above. Although Bischoff discloses a method of preparing a material processing apparatus, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bischoff to incorporate the details of that one or more helix curves are scanned according to the preset scan strategy, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) one or more planes situated obliquely with respect to the focus adjusting device are scanned according to the preset scan strategy.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step above. Although Bischoff discloses a method of preparing a material processing apparatus, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bischoff to incorporate the details of that one or more planes situated obliquely with respect to the focus adjusting device are scanned according to the preset scan strategy, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Regarding claim 11, Bischoff discloses (Fig. 1-5) after finding an intersection, a density of scan points in the vicinity of the intersection is increased after finding an intersection.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the claim, and specifically does not show the claimed method step above. Although Bischoff discloses a method of preparing a material processing apparatus, there is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Bischoff to incorporate the details of that after finding an intersection, a density of scan points in the vicinity of the intersection is increased after finding an intersection, along with the other claimed components of the method. Therefore, when viewed as a whole and for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor rendered obvious the present invention as set forth in the claim.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Relevant Art
The following is a listing of relevant art:
US 11931243 B2, US 20230165717 A1, US 20220376459 A1, US 20200188166 A1, US 20200121501 A1, US 20130158531 A1, US 20130274725 A1 disclose material processing apparatuses with calibration/scanning methods.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW WIBLIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9836. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 4:00 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached on 571-272-8648. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MATTHEW WIBLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights