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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/12/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 1/12/2026. Currently claims 1-18 and 21-22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the previous rejection of claims 1-14 and 21 rejected under nonstatutory double patenting as being anticipated by claims 1-14 of US pat 11766356 have been fully considered and are persuasive based on the amendments to the claims. The previous nonstatutory double patenting rejection of claims 1-14 and 21 has been withdrawn
Applicant’s arguments, see pgs. 7-10, filed 1/12/2026, with respect to the previous rejections of:
claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8, 18 and 21 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II
claim(s) 4 and 6 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II in view of Rosenthal
claim(s) 7 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II in view of Rosenthal in view of Herekar
claim(s) 9 and 16 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II in view of Bor
claim(s) 10 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II in view of Kurtz
claim(s) 11-13 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lopath in view of Chuck in view for Herekar II in view of Chen in view of Molina
claim(s) 14 and 17 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II in view of Chen
claim(s) 15 rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II in view of Bierhoff
have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous 103 rejections of claims 1-18 and 21 has been withdrawn.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the region including “a light diffusing material” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Paragraph 71 of applicant’s specification recites 9/21/2023 states the following:
“The micro-LEDs 1124 illuminate the spatial light modulator 1130 after passing through a region 1106e doped with isotropic scattering particles, such as Ti02 nanoparticles.”
However, if you look to the drawings there is no element shown in the drawings that is labelled 1106e. Therefore, the drawings should show the region and where the region (i.e. element 1106e) is located relative to the other structures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 1-18 and 21-22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitation:
“wherein the plurality of micro-LEDs and the spatial light modulator define a region including a light diffusing material”
Independent claim 21 recites the limitation:
“wherein the micro-optical element and the spatial light modulator define a region including a light diffusing material”
These limitations can be interpreted in two different ways. The first way the micro-LEDS/ micro-optical element and the spatial light modulator each include a region with light diffusing material (i.e. material with properties to diffuse light like TiO2 nanoparticles). The second interpretation is that the positions of the micro-LEDs / micro-optical element and the spatial light modulator define the upper and lower boundaries of a specific region and that this specific region has light diffusing material (i.e. material with properties to diffuse light like TiO2 nanoparticles). The best support for this limitation appears to be found in para 71 of applicant’s specification received on 9/21/2023 which states the following:
“The micro-LEDs 1124 illuminate the spatial light modulator 1130 after passing through a region 1106e doped with isotropic scattering particles, such as Ti02 nanoparticles. The spatial light modulator 1130 contains individually addressable pixels that can block or transmit the photoactivating light. By selectively activating or deactivating the pixels, a customized pixelated treatment pattern can be generated.”
This seems to support the second interpretation. Thus, the second interpretation is taken for this examination. Regardless if this is applicant’s intention or not, applicant should clarify what is being claimed here.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-18 and 21-22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended 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. Please note allowability is dependent on the interpretation taken for this examination as outlined under the 112 rejection section above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 21 is the broadest independent claim. Claim 21 recites a micro-device for corneal cross-linking treatment. The closest prior art is Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II. Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II discloses the invention substantially as claimed in the final rejection mailed on 10/29/2025. However, Lopath in view of Chuck in view of Herekar II fails to disclose the combination of “the micro-optical element is located on an anterior surface of the body”, “where in the spatial light modulator is located on a posterior surface of the body” and “wherein the micro-optical element and the spatial light modulator define a region including a light diffusing material”. This combination of these elements is understood to create diffuse light, thereby creating uniform light before being distributed into a specific pattern by the spatial light modular onto the eye. Uniform light is understood to help assist an even amount of cross-linking on cornea. It is important to note this missing combination of elements by itself is not the allowable, but rather it is this missing combination of elements in addition to all the claimed limitations of claim 21 together that defines a micro-device over the prior art. Therefore, the combination of claimed limitations recited by claim 21 is neither anticipated, nor obviated in view of the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights