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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arba Mosquera (US 20220133540).
Regarding claim 1, Arba Mosquera discloses a method for providing control data for an ophthalmological laser 12 of a treatment apparatus for avoiding optical aberrations (Fig. 1, section 0034, abstract, An optimized tissue removal geometry is determined from the ascertained subgroup and control data for controlling the eye surgical laser, which uses the optimized tissue removal geometry for separating the tissue), wherein the method comprises the following steps performed by a control device: ascertaining first aberration values from a predetermined wavefront measurement of an eye, which has a first extension, wherein a first refractive power error is determined from the first aberration values; ascertaining second aberration values from a subset of the predetermined wavefront measurement, which has a second extension , wherein the second extension is smaller than the first extension , wherein a second refractive power error is determined from the second aberration values (section 0003, In order to avoid these aberrations and also to correct existing aberrations of the eye, it is known to include wavefront measurements of the eye in planning the treatment. In particular, a wavefront from a wavefront analysis can be decomposed into Zernike polynomials of multiple orders, wherein each of the Zernike polynomials can describe a refraction or aberration effect of the eye. In other words, Zernike polynomials can be used to represent wavefronts, which in turn describe imaging errors of optical systems); ascertaining a difference between the first and the second refractive power error (Section 0038, In order to achieve this, an optimization calculation can be performed, in which one or more Zernike polynomials are selected for the subgroup if they satisfy a preset optimization condition, wherein the optimization condition can be preset by the maximized target corneal geometry and the imaging correction to be achieved. In particular, the target corneal geometry can be determined from a difference of an original corneal geometry and the tissue removal geometry, which can be ascertained by the combination of the selection of the Zernike polynomials); ascertaining an aberration-corrected refractive power change by subtracting the ascertained difference of refractive power errors from a predetermined subjective refractive power correction, which is predetermined from a glasses correction measurement (section 0034, the tissue 14 can represent a lenticule or also volume body, which can be separated from a cornea of the eye 16 for correcting a visual disorder by the eye surgical laser); providing the control data for the ophthalmological laser , which includes the aberration-corrected refractive power change (Section 0037, fig. 2, providing control data for the eye surgical laser 12 of the treatment apparatus 10 for the removal of the tissue).
Regarding claim 5, Arba Mosquera discloses only low order aberrations are determined for the first and second aberration values (Section 0011, Preferably, it is provided for the refractive correction that Zernike polynomials up to second order are preset. This means that Zernike polynomials of the zeroth, first and second order, which describe the refractive correction, are fixedly associated with the subgroup).
Regarding claim 6, Arba Mosquera discloses wherein higher order aberrations from the subjective refractive power correction are compensated for by the aberration-corrected refractive power change (section 0011, This means that Zernike polynomials of the zeroth, first and second order, which describe the refractive correction, are fixedly associated with the subgroup. By this form of configuration, the advantage arises that a refraction can be safely corrected in the treatment of the eye and the target corneal geometry can be maximized by the remaining Zernike polynomials at the same time).
Regarding claim 7, Arba Mosquera discloses the first and second aberration values are ascertained from the wavefront measurements by means of Zernike polynomials, in particular by means of low order Zernike polynomials (Section 0011-0012, This means that the aberration correction to be achieved is fixedly preset in this form of configuration in that the responsible Zernike polynomials are associated with the subgroup, wherein the Zernike polynomials responsible for the refractive correction can thus be examined for presence of the maximized target corneal geometry. Preferably, it is provided that Zernike polynomials from the third order are preset for the aberration correction.).
Regarding claim 8, Arba Mosquera discloses transferring the provided control data to a respective ophthalmological laser 12 of the treatment apparatus (Section 0001, providing control data for an eye surgical laser of a treatment apparatus for the removal of tissue).
Regarding claim 9, Arba Mosquera discloses a control device 18 (Abstract).
Regarding claim 10, Arba Mosquera discloses at least one ophthalmological laser 12 for the separation of a corneal volume 14 with predefined interfaces of a human or animal eye by means of optical breakthrough (abstract, abstract, section 0034, A geometry of the tissue to be removed, thus a tissue removal geometry, can be provided by a control device, in particular in the form of control data, such that the laser emits pulsed laser pulses in a pattern predefined by the control data into the cornea of the eye to remove the tissue), in particular by means of photodisruption and/or photoablation (Section 0002, pulsed lasers and a beam focusing device can for example be formed such that laser pulses effect a photodisruption and/or photoablation in a focus located within the organic tissue to remove a tissue, in particular a tissue lenticule, from the cornea), and at least one control device 18 (abstract, section 0034, A geometry of the tissue to be removed, thus a tissue removal geometry, can be provided by a control device, in particular in the form of control data, such that the laser emits pulsed laser pulses in a pattern predefined by the control data into the cornea of the eye to remove the tissue).
Regarding claim 12, Arba Mosquera discloses computer-readable medium, on which a computer program is stored (section 0001, 0006-0007, 0022, a treatment apparatus with at least one eye surgical laser and at least one control device for performing the method, to a computer program and to a computer-readable medium).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-4 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JON ERIC C MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-3107. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 830AM-530PM CST.
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.
/JON ERIC C MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/J.C.M/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796