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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the invention of Group1, claims 1-7 and 11-12 in the reply filed on 08/017/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the Restriction Requirement is traversed because, as amended herein, the claims of Groups I, II, III, and IV all recite common technical features that relate to the same invention. As such, as amended, the claimed subject matter of Groups I, II, III, and IV is not independent or distinct. This is not found persuasive because The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 no obviousness.
Claims 1, 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. 2014/0236135 (hereinafter “Donitzky”) in view of Pub. No. US 2025/0241794 (hereinafter Donitzky “794”). Donitzky discloses the invention relates to corneal surgical device, and particularly to laser -assisted epithelial removal devise 10 configured to perform surgery on an eye (Pars. 0002), the device 10 including a laser source 12 generating pulsed laser beam that has a pulse duration of that is less than a nanosecond, such as on the order of a picosecond, femtosecond, or attosecond (par. 0016);
wherein the laser optical system comprises: a laser source 12, a scanner 16, and a focusing objective 18 for scanning a laser beam 14 of the laser light within a corneal of the eye (Fig. 1A Par. 0015), and a focusing optical system, wherein the scanner system 16 is in the beam path (31,33) of the laser beam 14 is between the laser source 32 a focusing optical system 18, and contact element 28 (see Fig. 1B).
Donitzky does not teach the scanning system focus the laser light within a cornea of the eye in three dimensions. Donitzky “794” discloses an ophthalmic laser system for performing laser treatment of an eye. The system further includes a laser applicator, wherein the system is configured for ablating the cornea or the lens of the eye (see the abstract and Par. 0002).
Donitzky “794” further discloses that the laser applicator includes at least a portion of a scanning system for three-dimensionally scan a focus of the treatment laser beam within the eye. The scanning system may include an axial scanning system for scanning the laser focus along an axis of the laser beam and/or a beam deflection scanning system for scanning the laser beam through deflection of the laser beam. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill art to modify the time applicant’ invention wait would have been obvious to Donitzky in teachings of Donitzky “794” to focus the laser beam of the laser light within a cornea of the eye in three dimensions as claimed.
Regarding claim 2, Donitzky “794” teaches in Par. [0119] that the scanning system may include an axial scanning system for scanning the laser focus along an axis of the laser beam and/or a beam deflection scanning system for scanning the laser beam through deflection of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 7, the reference teaches the scanning system may include an axial scanning system for scanning the laser focus along an axis of the laser beam and/or a beam deflection scanning system for scanning the laser beam through deflection of the laser beam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AHMED M FARAH whose telephone number is (571)272-4765. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri. 9:30AM -10:30 PM.
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.
/AHMED M FARAH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
