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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 02/02/2026 have been fully considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution Examiner addresses the following arguments.
Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C § 102
Applicant asserts that the delivery assembly of Mordaunt is fundamentally different from the internal display unit recited in amended claim 1. Arguing that Applicant’s internal display unit is configured to allow the operator to visually recognize an aiming guide superimposed on an observation image in a heads-up display manner, whereas Mordaunt merely discloses projecting an aiming spot onto the patient eye without providing any internal display that overlays guide information on an observation image for operator assistant.
Examiner acknowledges that amended claim 1 requires the internal display unit to be configured to allow the operator to visually recognize an aiming guide superimposed on an observation image in a heads-up display manner. Examiner asserts, however, that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Mordaunt is also configured to allow the operator to visually recognize an aiming guide superimposed on an image in a heads-up display manner. As discussed in Mordaunt, the ophthalmic laser treatment device includes an eye piece that an operator can use to view both the patient’s eye and the treatment pattern that is projected onto the patient’s eye [0050]. In other words, the treatment pattern functions as “an aiming guide” which is “super imposed on an observation image”. Regarding the limitation “in a heads-up display manner”, Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) a heads-up display is a display that presents data without requiring a user to look away from their current viewpoint. Therefore, the internal display unit of Mordaunt is “configured to serve” as “a heads-up display” given that it allows operator to view the aiming guide without having to look away from the patient’s eye.
Art Not Relied Upon
Examiner acknowledges Applicant’s traversal of the art cited by Examiner, however since no reasoning for traversal has been provided, Examiner maintains that the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Double Patenting
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the grounds of nonstatutory double patenting of the claim of copending Application No. 19/339,333 in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 6445124B2). This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Instant Application
Reference (19/339,333)
Claim 1. An ophthalmic laser treatment device configured to irradiate a tissue of a patient's eye with treatment laser light each time an instruction for performing laser irradiation is input, the device comprising:
Claim 1. An ophthalmic laser treatment apparatus that irradiates therapeutic laser light to tissue of a patient's eye each time an execution instruction for irradiating the therapeutic laser light is input, the ophthalmic laser treatment apparatus comprising:
a laser irradiation optical system configured to irradiate the patient's eye with treatment laser light;
a laser irradiation optical system irradiating the therapeutic laser light to the patient's eye
an observation optical system that allows an operator to observe an observation image of the patient's eye through an eyepiece;
an observation optical system causing an operator to observe an observation image of the patient's eye through an eyepiece lens;
an internal display unit that is disposed in the observation optical system and is configured to display an image to the operator through the eyepiece; and
an internal display unit provided in the observation optical system and configured to display an image to the operator through the eyepiece lens; and
a control unit that includes at least one processor and at least one memory storing computer program code,
a control unit,
wherein the internal display unit
is configured to serve as a head-up display, and
internal display unit to display an aiming guide for assisting the operator in adjusting an aiming position of the therapeutic laser light to an appropriate position
the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to, when irradiating the patient's eye with treatment laser light via a contact lens
the therapeutic laser light is scheduled to be irradiated while using a contact lens having a plurality of reflective surfaces that reflect the therapeutic laser light in a direction intersecting with an optical axis… and the control unit is configured to execute:
acquire an irradiation plan that defines an order for irradiating a plurality of irradiation spots with the treatment laser light, the plurality of irradiation spots being scheduled to be irradiated with the treatment laser light; and
an irradiation plan acquisition step of acquiring an irradiation plan that defines, in accordance with an arrangement of the plurality of reflective surfaces, an irradiation order of the therapeutic laser light for the plurality of irradiation sections;
control the display device to display an aiming guide in accordance with a progress of the irradiation plan such that the displayed aiming guide is superimposed on the observation image to assist the operator in adjusting an aiming spot for the treatment laser light in an appropriate position.
an aiming guide display step of controlling, in accordance with progress of the irradiation plan, the internal display unit to display an aiming guide for assisting the operator in adjusting an aiming position of the therapeutic laser light to an appropriate position.
Reference does not disclose
wherein the internal display unit includes a display device and a half mirror
control the display device to display an aiming guide in accordance with a process of the irradiation plan such that the displayed aiming guide is reflected by the half mirror and superimposed on the observation image to assist the operator in adjusting an aiming spot for the treatment laser light in an appropriate position.
Hayashi discloses an analogous ophthalmic laser treatment device (FIG. 3) configured to provide laser treatment (abstract) to a patient’s eye (E). Like Mordaunt, the ophthalmic laser treatment device of Hayashi includes an internal display unit ([0061]: “imaging system”, which includes 42, 41, 35, 36, 31, 32, 33, and 34) that projects a treatment pattern (FIGS. 6A-6L) onto the patient’s eye in a heads-up display manner [0062, 0154]. As discussed in Hayashi the internal display unit includes a display device (42), a half mirror (41), imaging lens (35), erecting prism (36), objective lens (31), magnification lenses (33, 32), and a protection filter (34).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal display unit of Mordaunt to be the internal display unit taught by Hayashi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the internal display unit of Mordaunt and internal display unit of Hayashi are functionally equivalent, that is, they both function to assist an operator in adjusting an aiming spot by superimposing the aiming guide on the observation image. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the internal display unit that would best meet their needs.
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 13 and 14 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.
In re claim 13, the limitation “rotate the spot interval guide in the forward direction determined by a rotation angle of the contact lens required to shift the aiming spot for the treatment laser light…” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what applicant means by “a rotation angle of the contact lens required to shift the aiming spot “. As best understood, “a rotation angle” in this limitation would be the angle required to rotate the spot interval guide in the forward direction.
In re claim 14, see above (In re claim 13).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hayashi et al. (JP 6445124B2).
In re claim 1, Hayashi discloses an ophthalmic laser treatment device (Fig. 2, Fig. 3) configured to irradiate a tissue of a patient's eye (E) with treatment laser light (2b) each time an instruction ([0119, 0120]: user operation of “hardware key”) for performing laser irradiation is input, the device comprising:
a laser irradiation optical system (2) configured to irradiate the patient's eye with treatment laser light [0094];
an observation optical system (30) that allows an operator (Eo) to observe an observation image of the patient's eye through an eyepiece (3c; [0037]);
an internal display unit ([0061]: “imaging system” includes 42, 41, 35, 36, 31, 32 and 33) that
is disposed in the observation optical system (FIG. 3) and
is configured to display an image [0062] to the operator through the eyepiece [0060, 0062]and
a control unit ([0098]: “control unit 101 provided in processing unit 5”; FIG. 7 shows a block illustration of all processes/systems controlled by control unit) that includes
at least one processor [0115] and
at least one memory storing computer program code ([0016]: “storage unit”),
wherein
the internal display unit
includes a display device (42) and a half mirror (41) and
is configured to serve as a head-up display ([0062]: “projection pattern of the irradiation light with respect to the fundus Ef is depicted in the captured image”), and
the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to, when irradiating the patient's eye with treatment laser light via a contact lens (CL)
acquire an irradiation plan ([0124]: “process of determining the irradiation pattern”) that defines
an order ([0120: “arrangement direction”) for irradiating a plurality of irradiation spots with the treatment laser light (FIGS. 6A-6I show different examples of irradiation patterns),
the plurality of irradiation spots being scheduled to be irradiated with the treatment laser light (FIGS. 6A-6I); and
control the display device to display an aiming guide ([0107]; “control unit 101 controls the imaging system”; [0062]: imaging system displays “projection pattern of the irradiation light”) in accordance with a progress of the irradiation plan such that the displayed aiming guide is reflected by the half mirror and superimposed on the observation image [0062] to assist the operator in adjusting an aiming spot for the treatment laser light in an appropriate position [0120, 0121] .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordaunt et al. (US 2007/0129775), in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 6445124B2).
In re claim 1, Mordaunt discloses an ophthalmic laser treatment device (Fig. 1: 1) configured to irradiate a tissue of a patient's eye (R) with treatment laser light (14) each time an instruction (abstract: “user to select one of several possible spot patterns”) for performing laser irradiation is input, the device comprising:
a laser irradiation optical system (2) configured to irradiate the patient's eye with treatment laser light;
an observation optical system (3) that allows an operator (USER) to observe an observation image of the patient's eye through an eyepiece (56; [0034]);
an internal display unit (54 which includes components (70, 72, 74, 76, 77, 80)) that
is disposed in the observation optical system (FIG. 2) and
is configured to display an image (Fig. 1: “IMAGE”) to the operator through the eyepiece ([0033, 0034]) and
a control unit (90) that includes
at least one processor (92; [0035]: “CPU”) and
at least one memory storing computer program code (inherent; all computers have a memory),
wherein
the internal display unit is configured to serve as a head-up display ([0050]; Examiner notes internal display unit is “configured to serve as a head up display” given that the internal display unit allows an operator to view the aiming guide without having to look away from the patient’s eye), and
the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to, when irradiating the patient's eye with treatment laser light via a contact lens (78)
acquire an irradiation plan ([0036]: “define pattern variables”) that defines
an order for irradiating a plurality of irradiation spots with the treatment laser light ([0036]; an example of an order is shown in FIG. 8),
the plurality of irradiation spots being scheduled to be irradiated with the treatment laser light ([0036]: “total number of spots”); and
control the display device to display an aiming guide ([0035]: “desired pattern P”; Example patterns (100) are shown in Fig. 2- Fig. 7) in accordance with a progress of the irradiation plan such that the displayed aiming guide is superimposed on the observation image to assist the operator in adjusting an aiming spot ([0050]: one of the “spots projected by aiming light”) for the treatment laser light in an appropriate position [0035].
Mordaunt does not disclose wherein the internal display unit includes a display device and a half mirror, and thus lacks:
control the display device to display an aiming guide in accordance with a progress of the irradiation plan such that the displayed aiming guide is reflected by the half mirror and superimposed on the observation image to assist the operator in adjusting an aiming spot.
Hayashi discloses an analogous ophthalmic laser treatment device (FIG. 2, FIG. 3; [0009]) that, like Mordaunt, includes an internal display unit ([0061]: “imaging system” includes 42, 41, 35, 36, 31, 32 and 33) configured to serve as a heads-up display [0061, 0062]. As discussed in Hayashi, the display unit includes a display device (42) and a half mirror (41) which work together to superimpose a projection pattern on an image of a patient’s eye [0062].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the internal display unit of Mordaunt to be the internal display unit taught by Hayashi. One would have been motivated to make this modification because the internal display unit of Mordaunt and internal display unit of Hayashi are functionally equivalent, that is, they both function to assist an operator in adjusting an aiming spot by superimposing the aiming guide on the observation image. Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to choose the internal display unit that would best meet their needs. Accordingly, such a modification would yield wherein the internal display unit “includes a display device and a half mirror” and the displayed aiming guide being “reflected by the half mirror”.
In re claim 2, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mordaunt) wherein
the internal display unit has a display area (Fig. 1: area between 76 and 78 where “IMAGE” is displayed), and
the display area has a center that is aligned with an optical axis (Fig. 1: dash-dot line extending across “USER” to R) of the observation optical system (Fig. 1).
In re claim 3, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mordaunt) wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause
the control unit to control the internal display unit to display, as the aiming guide, a spot interval guide ([0035]: “desired pattern P”; Example patterns (100) are shown in Fig. 2- Fig. 7) in accordance with the progress of the irradiation plan [0035], and
the spot internal guide indicates an appropriate interval ([0036]: “spot spacing”) between the plurality of irradiation spots that are scheduled to be irradiated with the treatment laser light [0036].
In re claim 4, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mordaunt)
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to **change a size of the spot interval guide displayed on the internal display unit according to magnification of the observation optical system ([0034, 0036]).
**Examiner notes Mordaunt discloses the ability to magnify, in an adjustable manner, the image of the target tissue [0034]. It is apparent that magnifying the image of the target tissue would require the operator to adjust the individual spot size (via GUI) to ensure proper irradiation of the target tissue [0036]. Making this adjustment would cause the control unit to change “a size of the spot interval guide” displayed on the internal display unit, since a change in the individual spot size would cause the size of the spot interval guide to change.
In re claim 5, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mordaunt)
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to adjust at least one of intervals between a plurality of indicators included in the spot interval guide to match the appropriate interval between the plurality of irradiation spots ([0054]: “…separation of spots 100 in one portion of the pattern P can be different than that in another portion of the same pattern”).
In re claim 11, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mordaunt) wherein
a treatment target location of the patient's eye ([0028]: “the retina”) onto which the laser irradiation is performed has an arc shape or an annular shape (apparent as the retina is curved/disc-like in shape), and
the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to rotate the entire spot interval guide (FIG. 9A-9C, [0045]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordaunt et al. (US 2007/0129775), in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 6445124B2) [in view of Chabrier (WO 2014/049132)].
In re claim 6, the proposed combination yields wherein (all mapping directed to Mordaunt)
*the spot interval guide has a shape (shape of patterns (100) shown in Fig. 2- Fig. 7) identifying a next one of the irradiation spots (Fig. 8; [0045]: i.e. “technique for scanning”), and
the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to (Fig. 9A-9C):
determine an angle of the spot interval guide to be displayed on the internal display unit in accordance with the progress of the irradiation plan ([0045]: pattern P2 is rotated 11.25 degrees relative to P1); and
control the internal display unit to display the spot interval guide at the determined angle (Fig. 9B).
*Regarding the limitation: “the spot interval guide has a shape identifying a next one of the irradiation spots”. It is understood that an operator using the spot interval guide of the proposed combination would have knowledge of the treatment order (Fig. 8; [0045]: i.e. “technique for scanning”). Therefore, as far as the operator is concerned the spot interval guide (100) would display/indicate “a next” irradiation spot. In the interest of compact prosecution, and because Examiner understands the proposed combination may be interpreted as lacking “the spot interval guide has a shape identifying a next one of the irradiation spots” claim 6 is alternatively rejected under 35 USC. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordaunt et al. , in view of Hayashi et al., in view of Chabrier:
Chabrier discloses an analogous ophthalmic device (FIG. 4) that projects a pattern (FIG. 5A, FIG. 6A) onto a patient’s retina (470; abstract). Chabrier further discloses the pattern including visual indicators (partially shaded dots in FIG. 5B and FIG. 6B) that indicate a treatment order (FIG. 5D, FIG 6D; [0034, 0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spot interval guide of Mordaunt to clearly indicate a next irradiation spot, as taught by Chabrier. One would have been motivated to make this modification to eliminate the need for the operator to have any prior knowledge the devices scanning techniques (Chabrier, [0036]).
Claim 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordaunt et al. (US 2007/0129775), in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 6445124B2), in view of Chabrier (WO 2014/049132).
In re claim 7, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mordaunt) wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processer, cause the control unit to:
control the internal display unit to display the spot interval guide [0050] in a display area (Fig. 1: area between 76 and 78 where “IMAGE” is displayed) of the internal display unit;
The proposed combination does not yield
the spot interval guide includes a plurality of indicators,
the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to: control the internal display unit to display the plurality of indicators to be arranged along a curve line of an arc-shaped or annular-shaped treatment location of the patient's eye.
Chabrier discloses an analogous ophthalmic device (FIG. 4) that uses an internal display unit (436) to project a pattern of spots (FIG. 5A, FIG. 6A) onto a patient’s retina (470; abstract). Chabrier further discloses using a plurality of indicators (partially shaded dots in FIG. 5B and FIG. 6B) to provide a physician with a visual indication of a treatment order. An example of this is shown in FIG. 6B where pattern of spots includes a first (FIG. 6B: white/black dot on left) indicator representing a starting location and a second indicator (white/black dot on right) representing a next irradiation spot [0036]. As indicated by the arrows in FIG. 6D, the second indicator shifts counterclockwise one spot each time treatment is delivered [0036]. Chabrier further discloses the operator having the ability to choose both the starting location and the treatment direction ([0050]: “where…to commence the treatment”, “do sequences in other direction”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the spot interval guide of the proposed combination, to include a plurality of indicators and to control the internal display unit to display the plurality of indicators to be arranged along a curve line of an arc-shaped or annular-shaped treatment location of a patients eye, as taught by Chabrier. One would have been motivated to make this modification eliminate the need for the operator to have any prior knowledge about the irradiation order of the ophthalmological device, since including a visual indicator provides a visual representation of the order of the treatment (Chabrier, [0003, 0035]) .
In re claim 8, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Chabrier) wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to:
control the internal display unit to display a next aiming indicator (FIG. 6D: white/black dot on bottom of circle) at a position on an optical axis (FIG. 6D: imaginary line coming out of page) of the treatment laser light emitted by the laser irradiation optical system for a next one of the irradiation spots to be aligned with the next aiming indicator [0036]; and
shift a position of the next aiming indicator in the spot interval guide by one appropriate interval between the plurality of irradiation spots in a forward direction determined by the irradiation plan each time laser irradiation is performed (FIG. 6D: shifting indicated by arrows; [0036])
In re claim 9, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Chabrier) wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to shift the spot interval guide by an appropriate interval (FIG. 6D: shifting indicated by arrows) in a direction opposite to a forward direction ([0040]: “do the sequences in the other direction”) determined by the irradiation plan each time laser irradiation is performed [0036, 0040].
In re claim 12, the proposed combination yields a treatment target location of the patient's eye (Mordaunt, [0028]: “the retina”) onto which the laser irradiation is performed has an arc shape or an annular shape (apparent as the retina is curved/disc-like in shape), an angular range of an arc-shaped region onto which the laser irradiation is scheduled to be performed a specified number of times based on the spot interval guide is defined as an irradiation section (Mordaunt, [0028]: “patterns…on target eye tissue”), and
the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to:
if the laser irradiation onto all the plurality of irradiation spots within the irradiation section currently undergoing treatment is not completed, shift the spot interval guide by the appropriate interval (Chabrier, (FIG. 6D: arrows represent shift; [0036]) in the direction opposite to the forward direction (Chabrier, [0040]: “do sequences in other direction”) determined by the irradiation plan each time the laser irradiation is performed ; and
rotate the entire spot interval guide by an angle corresponding to an angle of the irradiation section in the forward direction determined by the irradiation plan each time the laser irradiation onto all the plurality of irradiation spots within the irradiation section currently undergoing treatment is completed (Mordaunt, ([0045]; Fig. 9A: spot interval guide P1 gets rotated by a small angle to create P2 )).
In re claim 13, see above (In re claim 12).
The proposed combination also yields (all mapping directed to Chabrier)
rotate the spot interval guide in the **forward direction determined by the irradiation plan by a rotation angle of the contact lens required to shift the aiming spot for the treatment laser light to a next one of the irradiation spots, each time the laser irradiation in performed (FIG. 6D; [0036]; see above section Claim Rejections § 112).
**Examiner notes that under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the phrase “forward” is arbitrary. For the purposes of Examination, based on Applicant’s specification, the word “forward” is being interpreted as advancing to the next spot in the treatment plan. Therefore, any irradiation plan with a spot interval guide outlining or indicating the next irradiation spot satisfies the above limitation.
In re claim 14, see above (In re claim 12 and In re claim 13).
In re claim 15, the proposed combination discloses (all mapping directed to Mordaunt)
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit, upon receiving instructions to rotate the entire spot interval guide for a next irradiation section before completion of the laser irradiation to all the irradiation spots within a current irradiation section, to rotate the entire spot interval guide by an angle corresponding to a treated range within the current irradiation section (Figs. 13A-13C; [0049]; Examiner notes that the spot interval guide (100) will rotate to the next quadrant (see Figs. 13A-13C for illustration of rotation) if excessive eye movement is detected (i.e., instruction) even if irradiation at the current quadrant is not complete; Regarding the limitations “an angle corresponding to a treated range”, Examiner notes that the spot interval guide is rotated by an angle (see Figs. 13A-13D for rotation) that corresponds to a treated range, that is, the range of spots to be treated).
In re claim 18, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Mordaunt)
the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to control the internal display unit to display, as the aiming guide, an outer circumferential guide (Fig. 3E: 100; [0036]) along a circumference of an observation field of view (Fig. 3E) by the operator through the observation optical system, and
The proposed combination does not yield wherein
the outer circumferential guide indicates at least one of
a rotation angle of a reflective surface of the contact lens suitable for the progress of the irradiation plan or
a direction toward one of the irradiation spots onto which the laser irradiation should be performed
As mentioned, Chabrier discloses using a plurality of indicators (partially shaded dots in FIG. 5B and FIG. 6B) to provide a physician with a visual indication of a treatment order. An example of this is shown in FIG. 6B where pattern of spots includes a first (FIG. 6B: white/black dot on left) indicator representing a starting location and a second indicator (FIG. 6B: white/black dot on right) representing a next irradiation spot [0036]. As indicated by the arrows in FIG. 6D, the second indicator shifts counterclockwise one spot each time treatment is delivered [0036].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the outer circumferential guide of the proposed combination, to indicate a direction toward one of the irradiation spots onto which the laser irradiation should be performed, as taught by Chabrier. One would have been motivated to make this modification to eliminate the need for an operator to have any prior knowledge of the treatment plan (Chabrier, [0035]).
In re claim 19, the proposed combination yields (all mapping directed to Chabrier unless indicated otherwise)
the outer circumferential guide (Mordaunt, Fig. 3E: 100; [0036]) includes a next aiming guide (FIG. 6B, FIG. 6C) indicative of a direction (FIG. 6D: black arrow) toward a next one of the irradiation spots determined by the irradiation plan (FIG. 6D; [0036]), and
the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to shift the next aiming guide to a position corresponding to the next one of the irradiation spots that is located adjacent to a currently irradiated one of the irradiation spots in a forward direction determined by the irradiation plan each time the laser irradiation is performed (FIG. 6D; [0036]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mordaunt et al. (US 2007/0129775), in view of Hayashi et al. (JP 6445124B2), in view of Chabrier (WO 2014/049132), in view of Sacks et al. (US 2021/0113373).
In re claim 10, the proposed combination does not yield
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the control unit to shift the spot interval guide by the one appropriate interval between the plurality of irradiation spots in the forward direction determined by the irradiation plan or the direction opposite to the forward direction when an instruction for omitting laser irradiation onto a next one of the irradiation spots defined in the irradiation plan is input.
Sacks discloses an analogous ophthalmological device (FIG. 1) that uses laser energy to irradiate a patient’s eye (abstract). Sacks additionally discloses the ophthalmological device having the ability to display a treatment outline (FIG. 3: 82, 84; [0124]) that shows where on the patients eye the laser energy will be delivered [0131]. Sacks further discloses the ophthalmological device having the ability to skip over an upcoming target region if the device determines that irradiation to the upcoming target region would damage the patient’s eye [0089].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmological device of the proposed combination to shift the spot interval guide by the one appropriate interval between the plurality of irradiation spots in the forward direction determined by the irradiation plan when an instruction for omitting laser irradiation onto a next one of the irradiation spots defined in the irradiation plan is input, as taught by Sacks. One would have been motivated to make this modification to provide the operator with a way to avoid irradiating more sensitive areas of the eye without fully disrupting the treatment plan (Sacks, [0089, 0090]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights