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 .
Examiner Note
In view of the amendments and applicant's remarks filed on 02/13/2026 have been considered and are persuasive thereby claim objections and claim rejection are hereby withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment to claim 1 filed 02/13/2026 has been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s amendment to the independent claim significantly changes the scope of the invention as a whole.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by applicant's amendment.
Further, it is respectfully pointed out that the applied prior art is considered to meet all of applicant’s limitations per rejections below. Most responses to arguments are addressed in rejections below.
While the amendments as presented do not present allowable subject matter, in the interest of compact prosecution, examiner feels that a further interview may help to expedite prosecution of the application. Examiner is available for an interview at Applicant's convenience at the number below should Applicant wish to discuss the case further.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrebski et al. (US PUB 2004/0227989; herein after “Obrebski”; in related embodiments of FIGS. 6-16) in view of Chernyak (US 10251783).
Regarding claim 1, Obrebski teaches a system (a microscopy system for eye surgery 1c, 1f and 1i shown at least in FIGS. 8, 12 & 15, [0082]) for performing ophthalmic treatments (see Abstract), the system comprising: a surgical microscope (1f) configured to capture images of an eye (31f) of a patient and defining an optical axis (5b, 5c, FIGS. 7-8) (i.e., a controller 61i which evaluates an image of the object plane 7i (e.g., eye 31i) captured by a camera 67i see para. [0089] and [0090], also see para. [0030]); an illumination source (37f-i) configured to emit a plurality of beams (beams 43c-i, 45c-I) onto the eye of the patient at a plurality of angles relative to the optical axis (as shown in FIGS. 8-15, also see para. [0020]; and a controller (61b-i) coupled to the surgical microscope (1b-i) and the illumination source (35i) (as shown in FIG. 15), the controller configured to independently control values for illumination parameters (e.g., light sources of different colors, intensities etc. … and parameters of the retroillumination system, para. [0073]) for each beam of the plurality of beams to facilitate imaging of the eye of the patient (i.e., the controller (61b) may drive the actuator 89 via the driver 91 such that a portion of the beam of standard illumination light 45b is within an optimized ratio to the illumination beam for the red reflex… and it is also possible to improve the image processing by modulating the intensities of the source 93, see para. [0076], FIG. 7, also see para. [0013], [0067], [0084], FIGS. 14); process an image of the eye of the patient to determine an attribute (e.g., a color) or change in attribute of the eye of the patient (see para. [0073]); and select the values for the illumination parameters (e.g., color and/or intensity etc.) for the plurality of beams to compensate for the determined attribute or the determined change in attribute of the eye of the patient (i.e., the beam of standard illumination light 45b may also be controlled by an LCD device or a DMD device in order to adjust (compensate) the color (attribute) and intensity (parameter) of the beam 45b, see para. [0061]).
Obrebski teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of select the values for the illumination parameters for the plurality of beams to compensate for the determined attribute.
However, in a related field of endeavor Chernyak teaches a tracking algorithm can establish the exact amount of rotation of the eye with respect to the wavefront image taken during the wavefront measurement. This torsional rotation of the eye can be compensated for by making corresponding adjustment of the laser beam delivery, column 3, lines 30-35.
Chernyak further teaches as shown in FIG. 6A, the first or reference image is a grayscale image of the patient's eye that is taken by a CCD camera in the wavefront measurement device under infrared illumination (λ=940 nm). In one test configuration, the images were 768×576 pixels and have 256 gray levels. The image contains the pupil and the iris, column 12, lines 22-28.
Therefore, 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 device of Obrebski such that the first or reference image is a grayscale image of the patient's eye under infrared illumination (λ=940 nm), and rotation of the eye (e.g., attribute) can be compensated for by making corresponding adjustment of the laser beam delivery (e.g., illumination values) as taught by Chernyak, for the purpose of improving the delivery of a laser energy to the patient's cornea.
Regarding claim 2, Obrebski according to claim 1 further teaches the illumination parameters include intensity (i.e., it is also possible to improve the image processing by modulating the intensities of the source 93, see para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 3, Obrebski according to claim 1 further teaches the illumination parameters include color (i.e., light sources of different colors, see para. [0084], also see para. [0031]).
Regarding claim 4, Obrebski according to claim 1 further teaches the illumination parameters include polarization (see para. [0086]).
Regarding claim 6, Obrebski according to claim 1 further teaches the controller is further configured to select the values for the illumination parameters to increase a red reflex of the eye of the patient (i.e., The controller 61b may analyze this asymmetry in the image and may directly derive the movement direction for the actuator with regard to an optimization (increase) of the red reflex, see para. [0070], also see para. [0079]).
Regarding claim 9, Obrebski teaches the controller is further configured to: process an image of the eye of the patient to determine an offset of a pupil (32a) relative to the optical axis (5a) (as shown in FIG. 6); and select the values for the illumination parameters to compensate for the offset of the pupil (i.e., the beam of standard illumination light 45b may also be controlled by an LCD device or a DMD device in order to adjust (compensate) the color and intensity (parameter) of the beam 45b. It is also possible to form the beam of standard illumination light such that substantially no light intensity enters the pupil of the eye, para. [0061], FIGS. 6 and 7).
Obrebski teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of determine an offset of a relative to the optical axis.
However, in a related field of endeavor Chernyak teaches an iris finding algorithm can be used to locate the iris, calculate the radius of the iris, and/or locate the iris center. Since the images of the eye from both imaging assembly 11 and the camera 20 both contain the pupil and iris, in some embodiments it may be more accurate to register the images by calculating the center of the pupil and the center of the iris and expressing the position of the pupil center with respect to the center of the iris. The center of the iris may be described as a center of a circle corresponding to the outer boundary of the iris. The position of the center of the iris can be used to calculate a pupil offset from the iris center, column 13, lines 8-19, FIGS. 1 and 2.
Computer system 22 can have software stored in a memory and hardware that can be used to control the delivery of the ablative energy to the patient's eye, the tracking of the position (translations in the x, y, and z directions and torsional rotations) of the patient's eye relative to an optical axis of laser beam 14, and the like, column 8, lines 18-23.
Therefore, 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 device of Obrebski such that to calculate a pupil offset relative to an optical axis of laser beam as taught by Chernyak, for the purpose of aligning a laser treatment that is derived from the measured wavefront, the patient's eye in the first image can be registered with the patient's eye when it is positioned in an optical axis of the therapeutic laser so that the laser treatment is delivered in a torsionally correct orientation.
Regarding claim 10, Obrebski according to claim 9 further teaches the plurality of beams includes a first beam (43b) and a second beam (45b) positioned on opposite sides of the optical axis (5b) and offset from the optical axis by less than 4 degrees (see para. [0062], FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 11, Obrebski according to claim 10 further teaches the controller is further configured to select the values for the illumination parameters to compensate for the offset by increasing intensity of the first beam of the plurality of beams toward which the pupil is offset and decreasing intensity of the second beam of the plurality of beams away from which the pupil is offset (i.e., change an intensity of the beams 43b and 45b (e.g., increase or decrease), para. [0061] and [0063]).
Regarding claim 12, Obrebski according to claim 10 further teaches the controller is configured to select the values for the illumination parameters to compensate for the offset by increasing a red component of the first beam toward which the pupil is offset and decreasing a red component of the second beam away from which the pupil is offset (i.e., to increase a sensitivity of such process, the controller 61b may modulate the light intensity (increasing or decreasing as needed) emitted by the red light source 95, para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 13, Obrebski according to claim 10 further teaches the first and second beams (43b, 45b) converge toward one another with distance from the surgical microscope (1b) (as shown in FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 14, Obrebski according to claim 10 further teaches the plurality of beams includes a third beam (19b, 20b) offset from the optical axis by between 5 and 12 degrees (an angle ε of about 7º see para. [0060], FIG. 7).
Regarding claim 15, Obrebski according to claim 11 further teaches the controller is further configured to: modulate the values for the illumination parameters for at least a portion of the plurality of beams at a modulation frequency (see para. [0075]); temporally filter images received from the surgical microscope with a bandpass filter (an appropriate color filter, para. [0019]) to obtain filtered images (i.e., For the detection of the red reflex, the characteristic modulation frequency can be filtered (with a bandpass filter) out in order to increase the sensitivity, in particular when using the color sensor, para. [0075]); and output the filtered images to a display device (an LCD display 79, as shown in FIG. 6).
Regarding claim 16, Obrebski according to claim 15 further teaches the controller is further configured to modulate the values for the illumination parameters for the at least the portion of the plurality of beams by modulating intensity for the at least the portion of the plurality of beams (i.e., it is also possible to improve the image processing by modulating the intensities of the source 93, see para. [0076]).
Regarding claim 17, Obrebski according to claim 15 further teaches the controller is further configured to modulate the values for the illumination parameters for the at least the portion of the plurality of beams by modulating color for the at least the portion of the plurality of beams (i.e., the light source 95 is preferably modulated in synchronized phase with the detection at the color sensor, para. [0075]).
Regarding claim 18, Obrebski according to claim 15 further teaches the controller is further configured to modulate the values for the illumination parameters for the at least the portion of the plurality of beams by modulating polarization for the at least the portion of the plurality of beams (i.e., The polarizer 120 is rotatable (modulate) about the beam axis by an actuator 121 controlled by a controller 61i. Thereby, it is possible to provide an optimized polarization for the beam 43i of retroillumination light, para. [0086], FIG. 15).
Regarding claim 19, Obrebski according to claim 1 further teaches the controller is further configured to independently control the values for the illumination parameters for each beam of the plurality of beams according to inputs received from a user (i.e., a microscopy system for eye surgery to support a surgeon (user) performing a surgical eye treatment, see para. [0002], also see para. [0027], [0052]-[0053], FIG. 4).
Regarding claim 20, Obrebski teaches a method (see para. [0002]) comprising: receiving, by a controller (61), a first image from a surgical microscope (1f); processing, by the controller (see para. [0076]), the first image to determine one or more attributes (e.g., a color) of a representation of an eye (31f) of a patient or change in attribute of the eye of the patient in the first image (see para. [0071] to [0074]); selecting, by the controller, values for one or more illumination parameters (e.g., color and/or intensity etc.) to compensate for the determined one or more attributes or the determined change in the one or more attributes in the eyes (e.g., light sources of different colors, intensities etc. … and parameters of the retroillumination system, para. [0073]); and illuminating, by the controller, the eye of the patient according to the values for the one or more illumination parameters using a tunable illumination source (i.e., the controller 61b may modulate the light intensity, para. [0075], also see para. [108] to 0112] and as set forth in claim 1 above); wherein the one or more attributes include at least one of iris color (i.e., the beam of standard illumination light 45b may also be controlled by an LCD device or a DMD device in order to adjust (compensate) the color (iris color) and intensity of the beam 45b, see para. [0061]) and pupil (32a) offset relative to an optical axis (5a) of the surgical microscope (as shown in FIG. 6, alsos see para. [108] to 0112]).
Obrebski teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of pupil offset relative to an optical axis.
However, in a related field of endeavor Chernyak teaches an iris finding algorithm can be used to locate the iris, calculate the radius of the iris, and/or locate the iris center. Since the images of the eye from both imaging assembly 11 and the camera 20 both contain the pupil and iris, in some embodiments it may be more accurate to register the images by calculating the center of the pupil and the center of the iris and expressing the position of the pupil center with respect to the center of the iris. The center of the iris may be described as a center of a circle corresponding to the outer boundary of the iris. The position of the center of the iris can be used to calculate a pupil offset from the iris center, column 13, lines 8-19, FIGS. 1 and 2.
Computer system 22 can have software stored in a memory and hardware that can be used to control the delivery of the ablative energy to the patient's eye, the tracking of the position (translations in the x, y, and z directions and torsional rotations) of the patient's eye relative to an optical axis of laser beam 14, and the like, column 8, lines 18-23.
Therefore, 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 device of Obrebski such that to calculate a pupil offset relative to an optical axis of laser beam as taught by Chernyak, for the purpose of aligning a laser treatment that is derived from the measured wavefront to the patient's eye such that the laser treatment is delivered in a torsionally correct orientation.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrebski in view of Chernyak, and further in view of Moller et al. (US PUB 2005/0117209).
Regarding claim 5, Obrebski in view of Chernyak fails to teach the controller is further configured to select the values for the illumination parameters to reduce phototoxicity to the eye of the patient.
However, in a related field of endeavor Moller teaches a surgical microscope of the invention is for ophthalmology and includes: a tubular unit; a main objective disposed downstream of the tubular unit; the tubular unit defining a viewing beam path passing through the main objective so as to permit viewing a surgical area of the human eye; an illuminating system defining an illuminating beam path leading to the surgical area for illuminating the same; the illuminating system including a xenon illuminating light source or a metal halogen light source for generating illuminating light containing light in the visible wavelength range and light in the ultraviolet wavelength range; and, at least one block filter arranged in the illuminating beam path and the block filter having a cutoff wavelength selected to filter out the light in the ultraviolet wavelength range and to at most insignificantly attenuate the light in the visible wavelength range thereby reducing phototoxicity of the illuminating light to the human eye, see para. [0010].
Therefore, 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 device of Obrebski in view of Chernyak such that a block filter having a cutoff wavelength selected to filter out the light in the ultraviolet wavelength range and to at most insignificantly attenuate the light in the visible wavelength range thereby reducing phototoxicity of the illuminating light to the human eye as taught by Moller, for the purpose of having a surgical microscope which is suitable for use in surgical eye procedures and provides an especially contrast-rich and detail-accurate viewing image of the surgical area for a viewer.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrebski in view of Chernyak, and further in view of Neta (US 11957521).
Regarding claim 7, Obrebski teaches the controller is configured to: illuminate the eye using the plurality of beams at a first blue light intensity (i.e., The optical fiber 37h (light source) supplies green and blue light, see para. [0084]); receive an image from the surgical microscope (see para. [0097]); and increase intensity of blue pixel values of the image to simulate illumination with blue light having a second blue light intensity greater than the first blue light intensity (i.e., a ratio I(red) over I(blue) increases (e.g., greater second blue light intensity) relative to a ratio I(red) over I (green), see para. [0069] and para. [0067]-[0068]).
Obrebski in view of Chernyak teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of increase intensity of blue pixel values of the image to simulate illumination with blue light having a second blue light intensity greater than the first blue light intensity.
However, in a related field of endeavor Neta teaches it has been found that illumination module embodiments utilizing blue light source(s) for illuminating an eye—have been found to enhance image details and increase e.g. by about 50% the resolution apparent to the surgeon, column 13, lines 7-11.
Therefore, 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 device of Obrebski in view of Chernyak such that illumination module utilizing blue light source(s) (e.g., with first and second blue light intensity) for illuminating an eye as taught by Neta, for the purpose of increasing the ability to detect details of about 15 micron in size from about 30 micron in size under red light background illumination scattered from the retina.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Obrebski in view of Chernyak, and further in view of Tesar et al. (US 11154378).
Regarding claim 8, Obrebski teaches the controller is configured to: process an image of the eye of the patient to determine an iris color of the eye of the patient (i.e., the microscopy system is configured to provide an appropriate illumination (values) for a treatment of a region of the eye, such as a cornea, an iris, and a lens of the eye, see para. [0003], also see para. [0031]); and select the values for the illumination parameters to reduce reflections from the iris color (i.e., the beam of standard illumination light 45b may also be controlled by an LCD device or a DMD device in order to adjust (compensate) the color (iris color) and intensity of the beam 45b, see para. [0061]).
Obrebski in view of Chernyak teaches all limitations except for explicit teaching of increase intensity of blue pixel values of the image to simulate illumination with blue light having a second blue light intensity greater than the first blue light intensity.
However, in a related field of endeavor Tesar teaches a more complex camera 5126 can have adjustment of two or more of: focus, zoom, iris opening, color or filter controls, pan, tilt, or other rotations about an axis, and other functions, column 115, lines 15-18, FIG. 50A-C.
Therefore, 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 device of Obrebski in view of Chernyak such that camera 5126 can have adjustment of two or more of: focus, zoom, iris opening, color or other rotations about an axis, and other functions as taught by Tesar, for the purpose of improving visualization systems, for use in open and/or minimally invasive surgery.
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 extension fee 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MUSTAK CHOUDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-5247. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached on 5712722333. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MUSTAK CHOUDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
March 24, 2026