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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathjen Publication No. 2013/0085483 (hereinafter “Rathjen”) in view of Teuma et al., Pub. No. 2017/0290703 (hereinafter “Teuma”).
Regarding claim 1, Rathjen discloses an ophthalmological apparatus for treatment of tissue of an eye, the apparatus comprising: a base station 2 with a treatment light source 21 (laser source) arranged in the base station 2 and generating light pulses; a support arm 3 mounted on the base station; an application head 4 mounted on the support arm 3 and can be placed onto an eye and has a light projector for focused projection of the light pulses to eye tissue (see the abstract, Fig. 1 and pars. 0003, 0006, 0037); an ophthalmological patient interface comprising a coupling portion and an eye fixation portion configured to be arranged on the eye for fixation a portion of the eye (Rathjen teaches [“Although this is not shown in the figures, … the application head 4 comprises a contact body which can be placed onto the eye 6”]) comprising a coupling portion configured to be arranged on the application head 4 (Figs. 1-2). Rathjen further teaches the treatment light pulses are transmitted from the base station through an optical transmission system 22. However, he does not teach an opening configured to enable the treatment light from the application head to pass the interface and reach a target tissue of the eye. Teuma discloses various interface device, patient interfaces devices, ophthalmic laser systems and methods of interfacing optical and ophthalmic analysis, treatment and devices with human eye (see pars. 003, 0013,014]. Teuma further discloses an optical interface device defining an opening for an optical path delivering a laser beam to an eye (see the abstract, pars. 0016, 0018), wherein laser 1502 provides a laser beam 1510, along laser beam path 1510a, wherein the laser beam traveling along the laser beam path 1510a travels through the optic 1530 and the interface device 1507, and through the opening 1520 in the interface 1507 and enters the eye (par. 0124), the interface device for fixing on a human eye and operably connecting to an ophthalmic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time applicant’s invention was filed to modify Rathjen in view of Teuma to use employ a through opening extending through the interface/coupling portion and the eye fixation as an equivalent alternative mean for delivering treatment energy onto a target region of the eye as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, the laser treatment system further comprises optical mirrors arranged between the application head and the patient interface or within the ophthalmological patient interface as claimed (pars. 0006, 0009,13).
Regarding claim 3, the optical mirrors comprise at least one adjustable mirror configured to adjust a specific angle based on a position of the tissue of the eye to be treated and the position of the ophthalmological patient interface on the sclera and cornea of the eye ( Fig. 9b, 0050,0052, 53).
Regarding claim 4, the ophthalmological laser treatment system further comprises an optical viewing, imaging and/or measuring modules 5 and 7 connected fixedly to the support arm 3 (Figs. 1, 8 and pars. 0036, 0041) or camera or surgical microscope (par. 0006).
Regarding claim 5, the ophthalmological laser treatment system further comprises optical path q from deflecting mirror49 and optical path r from the deflecting mirror 49 (Fig. 9b, pars. 0052).
Claims 9, 10, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathjen in view of Teuma as applied to claims 1-5 above, and further in view of Rill et al., Pub. No. US 2017/0340483 (hereinafter “Rill”).
Regarding claims 9 and 12, Rathjen does not teach at least a partially a coupling liquid, wherein at least one of the cornea or sclera contacting element comprises a sealing configured to seal at least partially between the surface of the eye and the ophthalmological patient interface applied to the eye. Rill teaches an alternative laser system for eye surgery, the system comprising a patient interface 600 containing a contact element 6610, which is designed as a liquid interface configured to seal at least partially between the surface of the eye (i.e., cornea or sclera) and the ophthalmological patient interface, wherein the at least cornea or sclera contacting element comprised protrusions as claimed (pars. 0289 and Figs. 18-19b).
Rill further teaches the contact element 610 is on- piece manufactured from a uniform transparent material and containing a suction ring 612 and an optical element620 in which all the functional elements are functionally integrated, thereby allowing a simpler handling than multi-components contact elements which are only assembled on the patient’s eye. Further, the use of an eye interface comprising a suction ring for stabilizing a patient’s eye during ophthalmic surgery is well known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to of one ordinary skill the time applicant’s invention was filed to modify Rathjen in view of Rill to use a one-piece contact element including a liquid interface in which all the functional elements are integrated as Rill described as an equivalent alternative means for delivering treatment energy onto a target region of the patient’s eye as claimed.
Regarding claim 10, examiner takes an official notice that it’s known in the art the use of a applanation lens/flat lens comprising a flat contact surface which forms part of rotationally asymmetric contact surface and configured to conform the corneal or the sclera of the eye. It would have been obvious the time applicant’s invention was filed to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rathjen and use an applanation lens comprising a flat surface that forms part of the rotationally asymmetric as an alternative contact surface adapted to conform the sclera of the eye as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 11, 13-15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED M FARAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4765. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 9:30AM -10:30 PM.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/AHMED M FARAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792