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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“…ascertain the eye orientation by means of a picture of the eye” in claim 9.
“separation of a corneal volume of a human or animal eye by means of optical breakthrough” in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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, 3, 7, 9-10, 13, 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bor (US 2021/0321869).
In re claim 1, Bor discloses a centering device (fig. 2A: visual axis identification system 200; [0036-0038]) for determining *a centering of a visual axis of an eye to a beam path [0021, 0035-0036],
wherein the centering device comprises:
at least two color sources ([0046]: fixation light beam 212 may include two or more wavelengths i.e. color sources) arranged in the beam path of the centering device ([0046, 0028]; fig. 2A: 212),
wherein the at least two color sources are configured to output a respective color signal in a visible spectral range to an eye interface (208; [0030-0031]) via the beam path
([0051]: fig. 7B shows what a patient may see when fixation light beam 212 passes through an optical center, which means that two color beams of 212 must be in a visible spectral range for the patient to see them; [0024]: patient maintain gaze on the fixation light beam must mean the beams are visible; fig. 7B),
wherein a wavelength of the respective color signals are different ([0046]: the two or more wavelengths may be different);
a capturing device (204; [0030, 0043]); and
a control device (206; [0030-0031]) configured to control the capturing device ([0045]: 206 analyzes images captured from 204; [0030]: 206 is in communication with 206 and may form a single device) for ascertaining an eye orientation upon presence of a superposition criterion ([0024]: superposition occurs when centers of two or more images coincide on a retina and is used to determine patient’s visual axis i.e. an eye orientation; [0037-0038]: focal points coincide on the visual axis; [0006]),
the superposition criterion comprising a superposition of the color signals on the visual axis is indicated ([0024]: superposition criterion is met when the centers of the images coincide while the patient continuously maintains their gaze on the fixation light beam; [0037-0039]).
*Regarding the limitation, “determining a centering of a visual axis of an eye to a beam path”, Applicant’s specification recites “it is provided that two sources with different wavelengths are coaxially arranged in a beam path, wherein the visual axis is centered to the beam path if both wavelengths coincide in the retina”. Bor discloses that a fixation light source 202 (see above) comprising two light sources with different wavelengths (see above) that the patient maintains their gaze on [0024] which creates two or more images on the patient’s retina [0024], and the centers of the imaging coinciding on the retina is used to determine the visual axis [0024], which reads on the above recited limitations since the visual axis would be considered centered once the wavelengths coincide in the retina.
In re claim 3, Bor discloses wherein the at least two color sources comprise
a light emitting diode ([0028]: fixation light source 202 includes LEDs to emit fixation light beam 212) and/or
a laser.
In re claim 7, Bor discloses
wherein the capturing device is further configured to ascertain a superposition of the color signals on a retina [0006],
wherein the superposition criterion is met upon ascertainment of the superposition (see in re claim 1 above).
In re claim 9, Bor discloses wherein the capturing device is further configured to ascertain the eye orientation by means of
a picture of the eye ([0006]: captures images of patient’s eyes; [0029-0030]) and
a determination of landmarks in the picture ([0025-0026]: picture would include iris 108 and pupillary center 106).
In re claim 10, Bor discloses
wherein the centering device comprises an input device ([0030]: part of 204 and 206 which sends the images from 204 to 206 for analysis) configured to generate a control signal for the control device ([0030]: control for capturing and analyzing images),
wherein the superposition criterion is generated in response to the generated control signal ([0024]: superposition occurs in response to control for capturing images and performing analysis on the images [0030]).
In re claim 13, regarding the limitations,
“generating, via the at least two color sources, respective color signals in a visible spectral range and with different wavelengths;
outputting, via the at least two color sources, along an at least partially common beam path, the generated respective color signals to an eye interface;
determining, via the control device a presence of a superposition criterion based on a superposition of the color signals on a visual axis of an eye located at the eye interface; and
ascertaining, via the capturing device, an eye orientation in response to determining the superposition criterion is present”,
see in re claim 1 above.
In re claim 15, Bor discloses
a non-transitory computer-readable medium ([0030]: analysis for the image processing system 206 would include a non-transitory computer-readable medium to store the images), on which a computer program is stored ([0030]: computer program involved with transmitting, storing, and analyzing the images),
the computer program comprising commands that cause the centering device to execute the method according to claim 13 ([0030]: inherent that the computer program used to control the centering device would comprise commands to perform the method of capturing and analyzing images to determine the visual axis).
In re claim 17, Bor discloses wherein, the landmarks comprise
a pupil center (106; [0039]: alignment includes pupil plane; [0025]) and/or
characteristics of an iris (108; [0025-0026]: alignment includes position of iris).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor (US 2021/0321869) [in view of Daxer (US 2011/0313344)].
In re claim 11, Bor discloses a **treatment apparatus ([0052]: methods may be used for ophthalmic procedures such as refractive surgery; [0002]: treatment such as LASIK benefit from the determination of the visual axis) with at least one ophthalmological laser ([0002]: LASIC includes ophthalmological laser)
for separation of a corneal volume of a human or animal eye by means of optical breakthrough ([0002]: known to be achieved through LASIK; [0052]), and/or
for a laser induced structural change with the centering device according to claim 1 ([0002]: treatments such as LASIK which cause structural change would be used with the centering device used to determine the visual axis; [0052]).
**Regarding the limitation, “a treatment apparatus”, Bor discloses the method of determining the visual axis being beneficial for various treatment apparatus [0002]. However, in the instance that Bor merely broadly suggests using a treatment apparatus with the method of determining the visual axis and does not explicitly disclose a specific treatment apparatus, claim 11 is alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as follows:
Srinivasan teaches
a laser eye surgery system [0021] comprising an imaging system (fig. 7A: 646) which determines a visual axis (43VA; [0243]: portion that determines visual axis is considered a centering device) and a treatment apparatus ([0273-0274]: devices for determining the visual axis are used for planning locations of incisions for surgical treatment which would require a treatment apparatus; [0275]: treatment apparatus comprises laser beam in order to treat the eye);
at least one ophthalmological laser [0275, 0283] for separation of a corneal volume [0283] of a human eye by means of optical breakthrough ([0283]: laser can be used to remove incision volume; [0286]: used with the centering device i.e. the portion which determines location of the visual axis);
wherein an eye interface ([0214]: patient interface 52) comprises a fixing device ([0207]: combination of suction ring and at least one of a solution, saline, or a viscoelastic fluid, and an interface lens 96 [0173]; [0155]) for an eye [0155];
wherein a control device ([0175]: control electronics 54) is further configured to control the fixing device for fixing the eye in response to determining the visual axis ([0175]: control electronics targets the targeted structures which are based on the visual axis and ensures laser pulse beam 66 is focused appropriately; [0286]);
wherein the optical breakthrough comprises photodisruption ([0254]: incision causes photodisruption; [0283]); and
wherein the fixing device comprises a suction ring (see above).
Srinivasan further teaches that treatment planning is provided in response to an identification of the visual axis [0248], which is useful in scenarios such as when a capsulorhexis incision is preferred to be centered on the visual axis [0286].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the treatment apparatus taught by Bor, to provide wherein a treatment apparatus with at least one ophthalmological laser for separation of a corneal volume of a human eye by means of optical breakthrough, in particular by means of photodisruption and laser induced cross-linking with the centering device, as taught by Srinivasan, because the treatment planning is provided in response to an identification of the visual axis, which is useful in certain treatments such as when a capsulorhexis incision is preferred to be centered on the visual axis.
In re claim 12, Bor discloses
wherein the eye interface comprises a fixing device for the eye ([0052]: methods of the visual axis identification system may be used with a treatment device, which would comprise a fixing device; [0002]: LASIK would benefit from the visual axis identification system),
wherein the control device is further configured to control the fixing device for fixing the eye in response to determining the superposition criterion is present ([0052]: based on the visual axis determined by the control device, the fixing device would be adjusted; [0002]).
Additionally, in the instance that Bor fails to disclose the above recited limitations, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 11 above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 2, 4-6, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor (US 2021/0321869) in view of Yoon (US 2022/0287562).
In re claim 2, Bor fails to disclose wherein the at least two color sources comprise white light sources with respective color filters.
Yoon teaches an analogous method to find a visual axis of an eye [0004] comprising two color sources [0004-0005], wherein the at least two color sources comprise white light sources with respective color filters ([0005]: each light source comprises a certain color interference filter that makes it a specific color; [0034]: combination of blue and red light will appear as white light, therefore, the red and blue light are interpreted as being white light sources).
Yoon further teaches that red and blue wavelengths are useful because of maximal separation in wavelength which provides increased distance from the visual axis [0061], however, any two wavelengths can be used, such as those that are about 150nm-300nm apart from one another [0061].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the centering device taught by Bor, to provide wherein the at least two color sources comprise white light sources with respective color filters, as taught by Yoon, because any two different wavelengths can be used, such as red and blue wavelengths, which are useful due to the increased distance from the visual axis.
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields wherein the wavelengths of the color signals are at different ends of the visible spectral range (see above, where blue and red light are used and are known to be at different ends of the visible spectral range).
In re claim 5, regarding the limitations, “wherein
one of the color signals has a wavelength in the visible spectral range below 500 nm and/or
the another color signal of the color signals has a wavelength in the visual spectral range above 600 nm”,
see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 2 above, where the blue light would be in the visible spectral range below 500 nm and the red light would be in the visible spectral range above 600 nm.
In re claim 6, regarding the limitations, “wherein the wavelengths of the color signals are at least 200 nm”, see in re claim 5 above.
In re claim 16, regarding the limitations, “wherein one color signal of the color signals corresponds to a red or orange spectral range and another color signal of the color signals corresponds to a blue or green spectral range”, see the proposed combination in re claim 2 above, where one of the color signals is red and the other color signal is blue.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor (US 2021/0321869) in view of Reimer (US 2011/0202017).
In re claim 8, Bor fails to disclose the capturing device is further configured to ascertain a superposition of Purkinje images of the color signals wherein the superposition criterion is met upon ascertainment of the superposition.
Reimer teaches determining a visual axis of the eye [0016] using a capturing device ([0057]: combination of image-processing unit 55 and camera 27) configured to ascertain a superposition of Purkinje images of color signals ([0015]: light sources can emit visible light and multiple Purkinje images may be used to determine the visual axis; [0017]: two light sources may be used; [0025]) wherein the superposition criterion is met upon ascertainment of the superposition [0015, 0025].
Reimer further teaches that using Purkinje images provides a simple mean of establishing the visual axis [0016].
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the centering device taught by Bor, to provide wherein the capturing device is further configured to ascertain a superposition of Purkinje images of the color signals wherein the superposition criterion is met upon ascertainment of the superposition, as taught by Reimer, because using Purkinje images provides a simple mean of establishing the visual axis.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor (US 2021/0321869) in view of Daxer (US 2011/0313344) in view of Peryman (US 9,937,033).
In re claim 18, regarding the limitations “wherein the optical breakthrough comprises
photodisruption and/or
ablation”
see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 11 above.
The proposed combination fails to yield wherein the laser induced structural change comprises
laser induced refractive index change and/or
laser induced cross-linking.
Peyman teaches a corneal lenslet implantation (Col. 2, lines 34-40) that requires a lens implant to remain centered about a visual axis of an eye (Col. 2, lines 34-40), wherein a femtosecond laser (Col. 3, lines 1-7) is used for incision in a cornea of the eye (Col. 3, lines 8-31) and causes laser induced cross-linking (Col. 3, lines 8-31).
Peyman further teaches that the cross-linking stiffens the cornea and prevents corneal ectasia of the cornea (Col. 3, lines 8-31).
It would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the instant invention was filed to modify the treatment apparatus yielded by the proposed combination, to provide wherein the laser induced structural change comprises laser induced cross-linking, as taught by Peyman, because the cross-linking stiffens the cornea and prevents corneal ectasia of the cornea.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor (US 2021/0321869) in view of Daxer (US 2011/0313344).
In re claim 19, regarding the limitation, “wherein the fixing device comprises a suction ring”, see the proposed combination yielded in re claim 11 above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
Greenberg et al. (US 2023/0039271) teaches tracking an eye (abstract) using two incidental light beams (abstract), wherein the tracking includes tracking a visual axis [0013].
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUMAISA R BAIG whose telephone number is (571)270-0175. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 8am- 5pm.
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.
/RUMAISA RASHID BAIG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796