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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show "small prisms (505) which are added to the outside of the objective assembly" in para. [0047] of the as-filed specification, "four (4) small prisms 505 positioned every 90 degrees generally about the inner circumference along an inner wall of the housing 530 of objective assembly 504" in [0060] and "each of the prisms 505 are symmetrically arranged around the objective 504 and the pyramid mirror 509" in [0064] as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). Examiner submits that the structural details of prisms 505 are not clear in the as-filed drawings, dated 12 December 2023.
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 Objections
Claims 5-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
With respect to Claim 5, the sentences recite “further comprising a plurality of mirrors configured to allow for an adjustment of the path of the beam of light towards the objective” and it is unclear how the phrase “to allow” followed by functional language should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the claim limitations. “[T]o allow” implies a hypothetical or conditional scenario without clarifying whether the allowability and/or claimed limitation is a necessary or optional aspect of the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system. This creates uncertainty about whether the claimed elements and limitations are required or merely illustrative. Thus, this phrase does not establish the relationship between the allowable condition and the claimed invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-16 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.
With respect to Claims 1-16, the terms "at a variety of angles to the Z-axis along a structured path" in Claim 1, "approximately 20 degrees to the Z-axis" in Claim 2, "positioned circumferentially around the objective" in Claim 3, "positioned every 90 degrees around an inner circumference of the objective" in Claim 4, "configured to allow for an adjustment" in Claim 5, "positioned at a conjugate plane relative to" in Claim 6, and "placed in proximity to" in Claim 7 are relative terms which render the claims indefinite. The terms are not adequately defined by the claims, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degrees, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, the Z-axis, structured path, angle of the beam of light, plurality of prisms, objective, path of the beam of light, and pyramidal mirror have been rendered indefinite by the use of these terms appearing in the claims.
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional conditional expressions, and optional functionality of an ophthalmic scanning system.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
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.
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, 5-6, and 8-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hillman US 20160327779 A1.
With respect to Claim 1, Hillman discloses an ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]), comprising:
a light source (illumination module 102; [0157]) configured to provide a beam of light (provide beam of laser light; [0157]);
an objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]) configured to direct the beam of light at an object (subject 106; [0157]) in a viewing region (as seen in fig. 1) of the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]);
a camera (optical module 104 comprising CCD camera/imaging module 132; [0157] & [0173]) having imaging optics configured to receive (received by detection/optical module 104 for further optical processing and imaging; [0170]), through the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]), a portion of the beam of light (light 138 from subject 106 directed via focusing module 108 en route to detection/optical module 104; [0167]) reflected (detection/optical module 104 receive light 135 that has been reflected by illuminated plane within subject 106; [0157]) from the object (subject 106; [0157]), the camera (optical module 104 comprising CCD camera/imaging module 132; [0157] & [0173]) having a viewing axis along a Z-axis (optical axis 139; fig. 1) through the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]);
a plurality of reflective and refractive devices (one or more illumination optics and/or components of beam conditioning module 120 include refractive, reflective, and/or diffractive optics; [0158]) configured to direct the beam of light (for forming a beam into a linear or planar beam; [0158]) from the light source (illumination module 102; [0157]; fig. 1) at a variety of angles ([0181]; as seen in fig. 1) to the Z-axis (optical axis 139; fig. 1) along a structured path (fig. 1) to the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]) to scan the object.
With respect to Claim 3, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of reflective and refractive devices (one or more illumination optics and/or components of beam conditioning module 120 include refractive, reflective, and/or diffractive optics; [0158]) comprise a plurality of prisms (prisms or any other mechanism for controlling directions of outgoing and incoming light; [0153]) positioned circumferentially around (e.g., fig. 2a-2c) the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]) to control a path of the beam of light (reflective, diffractive, or refractive focusing optical components of focusing module 108 receives input illumination and focuses the illumination into beam 137; [0166]).
With respect to Claim 5, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 3, further comprising a plurality of mirrors configured to allow for an adjustment of the path of the beam of light (scanning module 103 include one or more reflective elements e.g., a movable mirror mounted on a galvanometer to vary the optical path of the input illumination 134; [0163]; e.g., scanning and de-scanning mirrors of modules 116 and 118; [0165]) towards the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]; fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 6, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 5, wherein the prisms (prisms or any other mechanism for controlling directions of outgoing and incoming light en route to focusing module 108; [0153]) are positioned at a conjugate plane (as seen in fig. 1-2c; [0155-165]) relative to the plurality of mirrors which control the path of the beam of light (scanning module 103 include one or more reflective elements e.g., a movable mirror mounted on a galvanometer to vary the optical path of the input illumination 134; [0163]; e.g., scanning and de-scanning mirrors of modules 116 and 118; [0165]).
With respect to Claim 8, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 5, wherein the mirrors are configured for movement (e.g., a movable mirror; [0163]; e.g., scanning and de-scanning mirrors of modules 116 and 118; [0165]) with respect to the light source (illumination module 102; [0157]), the movement of the mirrors being configured to provide the adjustment of the angle of the beam of light (scanning module 103 include one or more reflective elements e.g., a movable mirror mounted on a galvanometer to vary the optical path of the input illumination 134; [0163]; e.g., scanning and de-scanning mirrors of modules 116 and 118; [0165]), thereby adjusting an end position of the beam of light (oblique angle; [0166]; as seen in fig. 1) as it exits the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]) and is directed at the object (subject 106; [0157]).
With respect to Claim 9, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, wherein:
the imaging optics (optical processing and imaging; [0170]) are configured to receive images (image light from subject is captured simultaneously from multiple depths to form one or more images; [0149] & [0166]) of the object (subject 106; [0157]) illuminated by the beam of light (such that multiple depths within the subject are illuminated; [0166]); and
the received images (formed one or more images; [0149] & [0166]) are subsequently (subsequently obtained images during scan; [0185]) analyzed to calculate geometric dimensions of the object (via further image processing of control module 150, imaging geometry including optics and components of modules 102-104 modeled to map detecting elements e.g., pixels of a camera detected during a scan to 3-D Cartesian space at object plane; [0182]).
With respect to Claim 10, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, wherein ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) is configured to be integrated into a femtosecond laser surgery system (femtosecond laser surgery and system utilized in SCAPE system e.g., DRI system 100 with live mouse imaging and surgery; [0579-585]).
With respect to Claim 11, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, wherein the camera (optical module 104 comprising CCD camera/imaging module 132; [0157] & [0173]) is configured to capture images of object (subject 106; [0157]) topography (DRI system 100 utilized to image a subject 106, either microscopically or macroscopically; [0157], imaging geometry modeled to map detecting elements e.g., pixels of a camera detected during a scan to 3-D Cartesian space at object plane; [0182]).
With respect to Claim 12, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, wherein the Z-axis (optical axis 139; fig. 1) is a central axis (as seen in fig. 1) of the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]).
With respect to Claim 13, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, wherein the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]) comprises a plurality of lenses (e.g., objective lenses, used in combination with an objective lens 202 or GRIN lens 212; [0166] & [0194-196]).
With respect to Claim 14, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of lenses (e.g., objective lenses, used in combination with an objective lens 202 or GRIN lens 212; [0166] & [0194-196]) are configured along (fig. 1 & 2a-2c) the Z-axis (optical axis 139; fig. 1).
With respect to Claim 15, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, wherein the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]) comprises four lenses (optical components of imaging forming module 126 similar to or same as optical components of focusing module 108, and thus, light from focus 414 can be refracted by a fourth lens 416; [0202]).
With respect to Claim 16, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, wherein the light source (illumination module 102; [0157]) is a laser (provide beam of laser light; [0157]).
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 Hillman US 20160327779 A1 in view of Ruiz et al. US 20040054359 A1 (herein after "Ruiz").
With respect to Claim 2, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 1, the angle of the beam of light (beam 137; [0166]; fig. 1), and the Z-axis (optical axis 139; fig. 1).
Hillman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitation wherein the angle of the beam of light is approximately 20 degrees to the Z-axis, for Hillman instead teaches that the angle of the beam of light (beam 137; [0166]; fig. 1) is at an oblique angle ([0166]) with respect to the Z-axis (optical axis 139; as seen in fig. 1).
However, in another field of endeavor, Ruiz teaches a method and apparatus for precision laser surgery ([0017]), wherein the angle of the beam of light B is tilted at about 15 to 20 degrees to an optical Z axis ([0155]; as seen in fig. 24-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the DRI system of Hillman to include the technical feature of comprising a light beam angle being approximately 20 degrees to an optical Z-axis, for the purpose of accommodating a non-interfering beam segment passage from a stationary mirror element to a movable scanning mirror element and providing a sufficient beam scan to achieve a maximum tilt range for an eye within an ophthalmic measuring system, as taught by Ruiz ([0155]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman US 20160327779 A1 in view of Vizi et al. US 20080308730 A1 (herein after "Vizi").
With respect to Claim 4, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 3.
Hillman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: there are four prisms, and wherein each prism is positioned every 90 degrees around an inner circumference of the objective.
However, in another field of endeavor, Vizi teaches a real-time, 3D, non-linear microscope measuring system and method of application ([0030-32]), wherein an objective comprises light passing through four prisms 29 within a P&W four-prism system and with each vertex of the prisms positioned every 90 degrees around an inner circumference of the objective ([0054]; as seen in fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the DRI system of Hillman to include the technical feature of arranging four prisms within an objective, for the purpose of providing a few millimeter divergence in a vertical direction between beams passing back and forth and advantageously utilizing non-linear effects obtained during focusing ultrashort-pulse/femtosecond lasers in 3D high resolution image generation of an ophthalmic system, as taught by Vizi ([0062]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate and rearrange multiple prisms of Hillman to be positioned every 90 degrees around an inner circumference of the objective, since it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device (St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co , 193 USPQ 8) and rearranging parts of an invention (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70) involve only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because utilizing other light-redirecting devices such as refracting or diffracting elements e.g., prisms and other types of adaptive optics, or any other mechanism for controlling the directions of outgoing and incoming light, is recognized as variations considered to be substitutable for the ones identified in any of the disclosed embodiments, as taught by Hillman ([0153]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hillman US 20160327779 A1 in view of another embodiment of Hillman.
With respect to Claim 7, Hillman discloses the ophthalmic 3D laser scanning system (DRI system 100/volumetric three-dimensional optical imaging and/or time resolved imaging; [0003] & [0157]) according to claim 5.
The first embodiment of Hillman does not appear to explicitly teach the following limitations: wherein a pyramidal mirror is placed in proximity to the plurality of mirrors, such that each prism in the objective is reached by aiming the beam of light onto the pyramidal mirror.
However, in combination with another embodiment, Hillman further teaches a prismatic mirror element 2130 within an illumination module 2102 (whose function fits within the description of illumination module 102 in fig. 1; [0281]) placed in proximity to the plurality of mirrors (scanning module 103 include one or more reflective elements e.g., a movable mirror mounted on a galvanometer to vary the optical path of the input illumination 134; [0163]; e.g., scanning and de-scanning mirrors of modules 116 and 118; [0165] module 102 in proximity to module 103; as seen in fig. 1), wherein each prism (prisms or any other mechanism for controlling directions of outgoing and incoming light en route to focusing module 108; [0153]) in the objective (focusing module 108; [0165-166]; fig. 1) can be reached by aiming beam of light onto the prismatic mirror element 2130 used for scanning and redirecting the beam within an illumination module 2102 (whose function fits within the description of illumination module 102 in fig. 1; [0281]; as seen in fig. 21a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify and combine the first embodiment of Hillman to include the technical feature of arranging a prismatic mirror element, for the purpose of generating an intermediate real image and correcting for variations in axial positions of points that are imaged, as taught by Hillman ([0281] & [0322]). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to rearrange a prismatic mirror element of Hillman to be placed in proximity to a plurality of mirrors, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention (In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70) involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144. Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because utilizing other light-redirecting devices such as refracting or diffracting elements e.g., prisms, mirrors, and other types of adaptive optics, or any other mechanism for controlling the directions of outgoing and incoming light, is recognized as variations considered to be substitutable for the ones identified in any of the disclosed embodiments, as taught by Hillman ([0153]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Ishinabe US 20180116502 A1 discloses an ophthalmologic apparatus similar to that of the claimed invention. Ikegami US 20140111772 A1 discloses an ophthalmologic apparatus similar to that of the claimed invention. Bewersdorf et al. US 20120193520 A1 discloses a beam splitter module similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 10 November 2025
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872