The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Interpretation
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.
The following claim limitations have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1
A contact element for fixing the eye…
The term “element” is a generic placeholder, which is modified by function “contact…” and “…fixing the eye” with transition word “for”. There is insufficient structure for performing this function.
Paragraph 38 of the PGPUB 2024/0122760, herein representative of the specification of the instant application, states “the contact element 14 can comprise a suction device 16, wherein the suction device 16 can be a vacuum pump, which generates a vacuum at a suction ring or ring segments capable of suction on a side of the contact element 14, which is oriented towards the eye 12.”
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.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 5 is rejected because it is unclear if the recitations following “in particular” (i.e., “in an infrared spectral range or in a visible spectral range) are positive limitations that further narrow the scope of this claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Srinivasan et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2016/0095752).
Regarding claim 1, Srinivasan discloses a method that uses “ocular features that are visible in the video images, or the OCT scans, taken during the corneal measurement step and to determine the position and orientation of the eye. This determination can be made with correlation for example, or identification for example, of the features of the first image in relation to features of the second image taken after docking for treatment” (see paragraph 136). This is within laser eye surgery (see Title and Abstract). More specifically, Srinivasan includes a “ring of the patient interface is coupled to the eye with suction” (see paragraph 24). Srinivasan teaches that “a first image of the iris is obtained with a first camera prior to the patient interface contacting the eye, and a second image of the iris is obtained when the patient interface contacts the eye. The first image and the second image can be registered in one or more of many ways, and the processor can be configured with instructions to determine the cyclotorsional angle of the eye such as by image matching algorithm or a pattern recognition algorithm” (see paragraph 59). This teaches the “acquiring at least a first image…” (i.e., claim 1, lines 5-7). The determination of a matching algorithm or a pattern algorithm for the first and second images reads on “determining orientation points of the eye” (i.e., claim 1, lines 8-9). Additionally for that limitations, paragraph 135 teaches another option in which “the operator to mark the patient eye, prior to the measurement, with ink dots that are typically positioned diametrically across on the periphery of the cornea. These dots can be acquired by the imaging camera after docking for treatment and used for calculating the coordinate transformation”, in which the ink dots read on “orientation points” as claimed. Thirdly, paragraph 136 teaches another option in which position and orientation of the eye is determined via corneal measurements based on the identification of features, where such features read on “orientation points” as claimed. The quote and citation above from paragraph 59, as well as the full paragraph 136, discusses the registering and/or correlation of a first and second image, thereby reading on “acquiring a second image of the eye…” (i.e., claim 1, lines 10-12), with paragraph 59 explicitly stating that the second image is after docking with the eye. The last sentence of both paragraphs 135 and 136 state, respectively, “These dots can be acquired by the imaging camera after docking for treatment and used for calculating the coordinate transformation” and “The image manipulation data is detected by the display software and used for the coordinate transform”, thereby making it clear that a determination of a transformation between the first and second images is the goal and purpose of the two images. Finally, Srinivasan teaches that “It can be helpful to transform the corneal measurements, like the astigmatic axis angle, to a new coordinate system to account for any movement and distortion” (see paragraph 207, 2nd-to-last sentence), which teaches the “adapting the treatment coordinates by the determined transformation matrix” (i.e., claim 1, last line).
Regarding claim 3, Srinivasan teaches in paragraph 203 that an OCT system is used for obtaining initial images of the eye. Then in paragraph 208 there is discussed an imaging camera that can track dots, and that “These dots can be acquired by the imaging camera after docking for treatment and used for calculating the coordinate transformation in a step 581”. At least this specific combination of options teaches the first image obtained by an imaging device of the treatment apparatus and the second image obtained by an imaging device of the treatment apparatus. It is additionally noted that there are multiple other options for acquiring images described throughout the disclosure of Srinivasan. Paragraph 114 discusses that the corneal measurement system may be integrated with the laser system or separate from the laser system (e.g., “such as in another room of a physician's office”). Additionally, paragraph 184 teaches that “Optical imaging of the cornea, anterior chamber and lens can be performed using the same laser and/or the same scanner used to produce the patterns for cutting.”
Regarding claim 4, Srinivasan teaches that when an initial image is acquired at a separate diagnostic device, then an additional intermediate imaging measurement is acquired. That is, “In embodiments where the first measurement comprises a non-contact measurement of an eye at a separate diagnostic device and the second measurement comprises a non-contact measurement from the laser system, the coordinate references can be similarly transformed to determine locations of the structures of the eye as described herein. In many embodiments, the second non-contact measurement of the eye can be used to align the treatment axis 43TRA of the eye with the laser system, for example in order to determine the second treatment axis 43TRA2 in response to an astigmatic axis of the eye as described herein.” (see paragraph 307).
Regarding claim 5, it is noted that Srinivasan states in paragraph 185 that the OCT imager utilizes infrared (e.g., “an aim beam visible to the unaided eye in lieu of the infrared OCT sample portion beam 102).
Regarding claim 6, paragraphs 17-18 teaches that “one or more tissue structures of the eye can be measured away from the patient support of the surgical laser and prior to contacting the eye with the patient interface, and these measurements used to determine locations of one or more optical structures of the eye when the patient interface contacts the eye” (see paragraph 17). Paragraph 19 teaches that “The optical structure of the eye may comprise one or more structures of the eye related to optics of the eye. The optical structure of the eye may comprise one or more of an optical axis of the eye, a visual axis of the eye, a line of sight of the eye, a pupillary axis of the eye”, some of which reads on a center of the pupil. Additionally, paragraph 19 states that “The one or more post-contact tissue structures may comprise one or more of … the limbus, a center of the limbus”.
Regarding claim 7, Srinivasan teaches that “In many embodiments, the first image of the eye and the second image of the eye comprise images of an iris of the eye from a camera. One or more structures of the first image and the second image may correspond to one or more structures of the iris” (see paragraph 37).
Regarding claim 8, it is noted that the multiple recitations of “and/or” are being interpreted as “or”, and as such only a single one of these limitations are necessary. Srinivasan teaches that “iris registration is used to determine a cyclotorsional angle of the eye when the user interface is attached relative to its non-contact position during corneal topography measurements” (see paragraph 59). Therefore, this method is being used to correct the cyclotorsional.
Regarding claim 9, it is noted that Figure 2 illustrates various structural components that are used in performing the methods, which include “control electronics” 54.
Regarding claim 10, it is noted that Figure 2 and 3A illustrate in varying detail a treatment apparatus with at least one ophthalmological laser for treatment of a human or animal (see numerals 44 and 64 in Figure 3A) and at least one control device (see numeral 54 in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 12, Srinivasan states in the Abstract that the surgery system includes “a processor in operable communication with the laser source, corneal topography subsystem and the integrated optical system. The processor includes a tangible non-volatile computer readable medium comprising instructions to determine one of an axis, meridian and structure of an eye of the patient based on the measurements received from topography measurement system, and direct the treatment beam so as to incise radial fiducial mark incisions.”
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasan in view of Charles (US Patent Pub. No. 2009/0093798).
Srinivasan is described above with respect to claim 1, and teaches to transform the coordinate space of a first image and a second image in laser eye surgery. However, the transformation is not explicitly stated as an affine transformation.
Charles teaches an ophthalmic treatment system and method for performing therapy on target tissue in a patient's eye (see Abstract). In Figure 4, Charles illustrates a method including generating a first image (step 1) and registering this first image with a live image (step 5). As stated in paragraph 34, “This image registration can be accomplished using affine transform or other stretching or morphing algorithms which match the two-dimensional video amplitudes of the live image from camera 62 to the two-dimensional video amplitudes of the pre-treatment image.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to specifically utilize an affine transformation (“or other stretching or morphing algorithms which match the two-dimensional video amplitudes of the live image from camera 62 to the two-dimensional video amplitudes of the pre-treatment image” paragraph 34), as taught by Charles, within the system and methods of Srinivasan, because although Srinivasan does not expressly teach that the transform in an affine transform, the reference does generally teach registering two images via a transform, and affine transforms are well known in the art for this purpose as illustrated by Charles; accordingly, thus the use of this specific type of transform to perform the method taught by Srinivasan would amount to choosing from a finite number of transform types available in the art at the time of the invention, which has previously been held as unpatentable (KSR v. Teleflex). Additionally, the instant application fails to specify any criticality to the use of an affine transform over any other transform or “other stretching or morphing algorithms which match the two-dimensional video amplitudes of the live image from camera 62 to the two-dimensional video amplitudes of the pre-treatment image” (see paragraph 34 of Charles).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES KISH whose telephone number is (571)272-5554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00a - 6p EST.
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.
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.
/JAMES M KISH/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792