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 6/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the pocket cut in Voorhees is not performed with reduced power density. The examiner notes the transitional phrase “comprising” , which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. The examiner notes that cuts 102 and 103 are made with reduced power followed by cut 104. Applicant argues Voorhees discloses a maximum reduction of 15% and therefore does not meet the claimed reduction of at least 20%. The examiner respectfully disagrees as Voorhees discloses in Paragraph [0039] hinge cut 102 and ring cut 103 are made at laser pulse energy levels that are lower than the other cutting steps. While an example of at 90% or more generally 85% to 95% is provided, this is an example and is not limiting the pulse energy level for these cuts. Paragraph [0039] more broadly teaches hinge cut 102 and ring cut 103 are made at laser pulse energy levels that are lower than the other cutting steps. See MPEP 2123. However, in order to advance prosecution, and in light of the amendment, an alternative rejection is made.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Voorhees et al (US Publication 2022/0175581).
Referring to Claim 1, Voorhees et al teaches a method for providing control data for an ophthalmological laser of a treatment apparatus (e.g. Paragraphs [0002] and [0014) for avoiding an opaque bubble layer in a cornea (e.g. Paragraph [0041]), wherein the method comprises the following steps performed by a control device: determining a treatment area in the cornea by predetermined examination data, wherein first irradiation parameters for providing an optical breakdown are set for the treatment area (e.g. Paragraph [0040] discloses bed cut 104 is made by creating overlapping parallel raster scan passes of the laser scan line); determining an initial irradiation area in or adjoining to the treatment area, in which an irradiation of the cornea is started (e.g. Paragraph [0039] discloses low energy ring cut 103 is made at the bed level along the periphery of the bed circle except for the hinge portion, to create the peripheral edge of the flap bed, as shown in FIGS. 2A3 and 2B3), wherein second irradiation parameters for the optical breakdown are set for the initial irradiation area, wherein a power density reduced by at least 20% compared to the first irradiation parameters is generated by the second irradiation parameters (e.g. Paragraph [0039] discloses the order of the hinge cut 102 and ring cut 103 may be reversed. Both cuts are made at laser pulse energy levels that are lower than the other cutting steps); wherein a positioning of at least a first laser pulse path adjoining to the initial irradiation area is set for an irradiation of the treatment area by the first irradiation parameters subsequent to the initial irradiation area (e.g. Figure 2A4 illustrates cut 104 made adjoining 102/103); providing the control data for the ophthalmological laser, which includes the treatment area and the initial irradiation area with the respective irradiation parameters (e.g. Figures 2A1-2B5).
In the alternative, Voorhees et al does not teach a power density reduced by at least 20%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method as taught by Voorhees et al with a power density reduced by at least 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ (Please see MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to Claim 2, Voorhees et al teaches the method according to claim 1, the power density reduced by 50% compared to the first irradiation parameters, and is generated by the second irradiation parameters (e.g. Paragraph [0039]).
In the alternative, Voorhees et al does not teach a power density reduced by 50%. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the method as taught by Voorhees et al with a power density reduced by at least 20%, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art [In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233] and/or since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ (Please see MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to Claim 3, Voorhees et al teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a pulse energy is reduced for the second irradiation parameters (e.g. Paragraph [0039]).
Referring to Claim 7, Voorhees et al teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the initial irradiation area is again irradiated by the first irradiation parameters after at least the first laser pulse path has been generated in the treatment area (e.g. Paragraph [0040] discloses the second ring cut 105 is then made in the same area of the first ring cut 103 to ensure tissue separation at the edges of the bed, as shown in FIGS. 2A5 and 2B5. The second ring cut 105 is made in the same way as the first ring cut 103 but at the normal pulse energy.).
Referring to Claim 8, Voorhees et al teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a lenticule is defined in the cornea as the treatment area, wherein the initial irradiation area is planned adjoining to the lenticule viewed in radial direction (e.g. Figures 2A3-2B5 and Paragraph [0083]).
Referring to Claim 9, Voorhees et al teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a lenticule with an anterior and posterior interface is defined as the irradiation area, wherein the initial irradiation area is planned as an annulus around a center of the respective interface (e.g. Figures 2A3-2B5 and Paragraph [0083]).
Referring to Claim 10, Voorhees et al teaches a method for controlling a treatment apparatus, wherein the method comprises the following steps: the method steps of the method according to claim 1, and transferring the provided control data to a respective ophthalmological laser of the treatment apparatus (e.g. Paragraphs [0008] and [0014]).
Referring to Claim 11, Voorhees et al teaches a control device, which is configured to perform a respective method according to claim 1 (e.g. Paragraphs [0008] and [0014]).
Referring to Claim 12, Voorhees et al teaches a treatment apparatus with at least one ophthalmological laser for the separation of a corneal volume with predefined interfaces of a human or animal eye by optical breakdown, in particular by photodisruption and/or photoablation, and at least one control device according to claim 11 (e.g. Paragraphs [0008] and [0014]).
Referring to Claim 13, Voorhees et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium configured for storing a computer program, the computer program comprising commands which cause a treatment apparatus to execute the method according to claim 1 (e.g. Paragraphs [0008] and [0014]).
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voorhees et al (US Publication 2022/0175581) in view of Bischoff et al (US Publication 2014/0288539).
Referring to Claims 4-5, Voorhees et al teaches the method according to claim 1, except wherein a laser pulse distance is increased for the second irradiation parameters; and wherein the laser pulse distance includes a distance of adjacent laser pulses on a laser pulse path and/or a distance of adjacent laser pulse paths.
Bischoff et al teaches that it is known to use spatial distance is used to adjust the power density of the irradiation as set forth in Paragraphs [0018]-0021] to provide for a photodisruption with predetermined probability. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Voorhees et al, with wherein a laser pulse distance is increased for the second irradiation parameters; and wherein the laser pulse distance includes a distance of adjacent laser pulses on a laser pulse path and/or a distance of adjacent laser pulse paths as taught by Bischoff et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of a photodisruption with predetermined probability.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Voorhees et al (US Publication 2022/0175581) in view of Sercel et al (US Publication 2009/0127240).
Referring to Claim 6, Voorhees et al teaches the method according to claim 1, except wherein a repetition rate of the laser is reduced for the second irradiation parameters. Sercel et al teaches that it is known to use reducing a repetition rate of the laser to reduce the power density is as set forth in Paragraph [0012] to provide control of the laser energy and thus the amount of material removed. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method as taught by Voorhees et al, with a repetition rate of the laser is reduced for the second irradiation parameters as taught by Sercel et al, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of to control the laser energy and thus the amount of material removed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Malek Tabrizi et al (US Publication 2022/0378615) discloses an ophthalmic surgical laser for preventing bubbles.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Levicky whose telephone number is (571)270-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM 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.
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.
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights