DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 Information Disclosure Statement, filed 25 April 2024 has been fully considered by the examiner. A signed copy is attached.
Acknowledgement is made of the preliminary amendment to the claims and specification filed on 25 April 2024, and the application is being examined on the basis of the amended disclosure.
Claims 1-17 and 19 are pending.
Claims 1-17 and 19 are rejected, grounds follow.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 8 be found allowable, claim 9 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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.
Claims 4, 5, and 14 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 4 recites the broad recitation “between 10:9 and 10:1 inclusive”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 5:4 and 2:1 inclusive” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. Similarly, claim 5 recites the broad recitation “between 9:10 and 1:10 inclusive” and also “preferably between 4:5 and 1:2 inclusive” which is the narrower statement; and claim 14 recites the broad recitation “a value between 1.25 and 4” and the narrower statement “preferably of 2.2”.
The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to at least an embodiment that embraces transitory forms of signal transmission. (see in re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1357; 84 USPQ2d 1495, 1503 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Claims are directed to "a computer readable medium for storing a computer program” applicant’s disclosure states:
[0052] A fifth aspect of the invention relates to a computer-readable medium (storage medium)… The storage medium is for example formed as a data memory, in particular at least partially as a volatile or a non-volatile data memory. A non-volatile data memory can be a flash memory and/or an SSD (solid state drive) and/or a hard disk. A volatile data memory can be a RAM (random access memory). For example, the commands can be present as a source code of a programming language and/or as assembler and/or as a binary code.
which does not appear to rise to the level of an explicit redefinition of the terms at issue, and examiner has therefore accorded the limitation plain meaning. A person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have understood this claim limitation as embracing transitory signal media, such as carrier waves. (see Ex Parte Mewherter, Appeal 2012-007692, Patent Trial and Appeal Board, 2012, page 14: “while the recitation “non-transitory” is a viable option for overcoming the presumption that those media encompass signals or carrier waves, merely indicating that such media are “physical” or tangible” will not overcome such presumption”). A claim that covers both statutory and non-statutory embodiments embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter, and accordingly is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. See MPEP 2106.I.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-14, 16-17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muhlhoff et al., AU 2006-301603.
Regarding Claims 1, 16-17 and 19, Muhlhoff discloses:
A method for providing control data for a laser (Fig. 5 laser S) of a processing apparatus (fig. 5 “Laster surgical instrument” see page 12 line 19), wherein the method comprises the following steps performed by at least one control device (e.g. Control device 17, see Page 17, line 18):
outputting control data to a processing apparatus, (Page 17, line 19 “The control device 17 causes operation of the laser surgical instrument 1 by the process features described herein.”) wherein the control data effect that laser pulses (page 12 line 26 “The laser S generates laser pulses having a duration in the fs range.”) are sequentially output (see figs. 10-12) onto positions of impingement into a processing area (i.e. the patients cornea, see page 11 lines 23-33 “Material removal is effected by separating material layers in the cornea”) to be processed along an incision path by the laser of the processing apparatus, (page 11, line 30 “The cut surface 9 is formed by sequential arrangement of the plasma bubbles 8 as a result of a continuous shift in the focus 7 of the pulsed laser beam 3.”)
wherein the positions of impingement have a pulse distance to each other along a path direction of the incision path, (see figs. 10-12; page 14 line 21 “Fig. 10 clearly shows that the distance between the individual coordinates X1, X2, X3 and X4 corresponds to approximately half the diameter d of the zones of interaction 20 - 24, which results in a simple overlap.”)
and adjacent rows of the incision path have a row distance to each other (see particularly fig. 12 and page 14 line 30-34 particularly “the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... ).”) along the incision path in a transverse direction of the incision path, (ibid.)
ascertaining an effective diameter of a local effective area (see figs. 6-7) generated by the respective laser pulse (Fig. 6 shows a threshold value M as a graph illustrating the relationship between a spacing “a” at which the centers of interaction of the individual laser pulses are sequentially arranged within the eye's cornea 5” with a pulse energy to be adjusted in the respective position of impingement, (ibid. “and the fluence F of each laser pulse, An optical breakthrough with an ensuing plasma bubble Is generated only at a fluence above the threshold value.”)
ascertaining a unit area to be formed by the pulse distance and the row distance depending on the effective diameter and an energy dose to be provided in the processing area, (Page 13 line 15 “All variants are based on the course of the threshold value M for the fluence F as a function of the distance a. This dependence is approximated by the following formula: M = 3.3 J/cm2 ~ (2.4 J/cm2) I (1 + (a/r2)2 ), wherein r is a parameter representing the average range of influence and is located between 3 and 10 μm, preferably 5 μm.”)
ascertaining the pulse distance as well as the row distance of the incision path according to a preset ascertaining method depending on the unit area, (see page 7 line 14 “a further embodiment is provided wherein the spatial distance a of the centers of interaction of two 15 sequential pulses is smaller than the size of the focus d, so that there is a mutual overlap of volumes of the material that are sequentially irradiated with laser radiation, i.e. zones of interaction. This embodiment results in material separation without formation of plasma bubbles, which leads to a particularly smooth cut.”)
and generating the control data for controlling the processing apparatus (1). (Page 10 line 24 “a control unit which controls the scanning unit and the source of laser radiation such that a cut surface is produced in the material by sequential arrangement of zones of interaction, wherein the control unit controls the source of laser radiation and the scanning unit such that the cut surface includes two portions located adjacent to each other along the optical axis and irradiates these at least partially with processing laser radiation pulses”)
Regarding Claims 16, 17, and 19, these claim recite substantively the same subject matter except embodied as a control device, a processing apparatus including the control device of claim 16, and a computer-readable medium which causes a control device to execute the method of claim 1, respectively; Mutatis mutandis, these claims are likewise anticipated by the disclosure of Muhlhoff for substantively the same reasons articulated with respect to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 2, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
wherein the local effective area generated in the respective position of impingement is ascertained depending on a local processing depth (page 3 line 17 “Therefore, two-dimensional deflection of the laser radiation is combined with simultaneous shifting of the focus in a third spatial direction.”) of the processing area to be processed. (Page 12 line 8 “focus 7 to be shifted
along three orthogonal axes in the x/y/z coordinate system shown schematically in Fig. 4. The deflecting unit 10 shifts the focus In the x/y plane, with the line mirror allowing to shift the focus in the x direction and the frame mirror allowing a shift In the y direction. In contrast thereto, the telescope 6 acts on the z coordinate of the focus 7. Thus, three-dimensional displacement of the focus 7 is achieved as a whole.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
wherein the pulse distance and the row distance have an asymmetric ratio to each other. (see figs. 10,11,12 and Page 14 lines 10-35, particularly “depending on the intervals. In this case, the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... )”)
Regarding Claim 4, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
wherein the pulse distance and the row distance have an asymmetric ratio to each other, (see figs. 10,11,12 and Page 14 lines 10-35, particularly “depending on the intervals. In this case, the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... )”) wherein the pulse distance and the row distance have a ratio between 10:9 inclusive and 10:1 inclusive, preferably between 5:4 inclusive and 2:1 inclusive. (see figs. 10-12, citation supra and MPEP 2131.03)
Regarding Claim 5, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
wherein the pulse distance and the row distance have an asymmetric ratio to each other, (see figs. 10,11,12 and Page 14 lines 10-35, particularly “depending on the intervals. In this case, the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... )”)wherein the pulse distance and the row distance have a ratio between 9:10 inclusive and 1:10 inclusive, preferably between 4:5 inclusive and 1:2 inclusive. (see figs. 10-12, citation supra and MPEP 2131.03)
Regarding Claim 6, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
ascertaining the pulse distance according to a preset optimization method, (page 7 line 13 “a further embodiment is provided wherein the spatial distance a of the centers of interaction of two sequential pulses is smaller than the size of the focus d, so that there is a mutual overlap of volumes of the material that are sequentially irradiated with laser radiation, i.e. zones of interaction. This embodiment results in material separation without formation of plasma bubbles, which leads to a particularly smooth cut.”)
wherein the optimization method is configured to parameterize the pulse distance (Page 4, line 35 “distance between the focus positions of adjacent optical breakthroughs”) such that a local energy density of an energy input into the processing area by the pulse energy of the respective laser pulses is minimized (Page 7 line 20 “the fluence of the laser pulse can then also be decreased below the already explained threshold value, because a tissue-separating effect is still achieved due to overlapping of zones of interaction. The individual laser pulse then no longer securely generates an optical breakthrough; the separation of tissue is caused only if the zones of interaction overlap. This allows pulse energies that are orders of magnitude below those of the state of the art”) along the path direction, (Page 4 line 35 “The inventive minimization of the distance between centers of interaction, e.g. of the distance
between the focus positions of adjacent optical breakthroughs, according to variant 1 allows the processing pulse energy to be decreased. The parameter describing the pulse energy is the fluence, i.e. the energy per area or the areal density of energy”)
and ascertaining the row distance (18) from the unit area and the pulse distance. (see figs. 10,11,12 and Page 14 lines 10-35, particularly “depending on the intervals. In this case, the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... )”)
Regarding Claim 7, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
ascertaining the pulse distance according to a preset optimization method, (page 7 line 13 “a further embodiment is provided wherein the spatial distance a of the centers of interaction of two sequential pulses is smaller than the size of the focus d, so that there is a mutual overlap of volumes of the material that are sequentially irradiated with laser radiation, i.e. zones of interaction. This embodiment results in material separation without formation of plasma bubbles, which leads to a particularly smooth cut.”)
wherein the optimization method is configured to parameterize the pulse energy (see e.g. Page 13 line 15 “threshold value M for the fluence F as a function of the distance “a”) such that a local energy density of an energy input into the processing area by the pulse energy of the respective laser pulses is minimized (Page 7 line 20 “the fluence of the laser pulse can then also be decreased below the already explained threshold value, because a tissue-separating effect is still achieved due to overlapping of zones of interaction. The individual laser pulse then no longer securely generates an optical breakthrough; the separation of tissue is caused only if the zones of interaction overlap. This allows pulse energies that are orders of magnitude below those of the state of the art”) along the path direction, (Page 4 line 35 “The inventive minimization of the distance between centers of interaction, e.g. of the distance between the focus positions of adjacent optical breakthroughs, according to variant 1 allows the processing pulse energy to be decreased. The parameter describing the pulse energy is the fluence, i.e. the energy per area or the areal density of energy”)
wherein the optimization method is configured to parameterize the pulse energy to be adjusted such that a local energy density is minimized along the path direction, (Page 13 line 20 “In a first variant, the instrument 1 works with a spacing a of the laser focuses 7. i.e. of the centers of interaction, which is below a maximum value amax = 10μm. From this value, the graph for the threshold value M drops considerably towards smaller spacings “a”; making it possible to work with a clearly reduced fluence F.”)
and ascertaining the row distance from the unit area and the pulse distance. (see figs. 10,11,12 and Page 14 lines 10-35, particularly “depending on the intervals. In this case, the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... )”)
Regarding Claim 10, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
Ascertaining the pulse distance according to a preset optimization method, (page 7 line 13 “a further embodiment is provided wherein the spatial distance a of the centers of interaction of two sequential pulses is smaller than the size of the focus d, so that there is a mutual overlap of volumes of the material that are sequentially irradiated with laser radiation, i.e. zones of interaction. This embodiment results in material separation without formation of plasma bubbles, which leads to a particularly smooth cut.”)
wherein the optimization method is configured to parameterize the pulse distance (Page 4, line 35 “distance between the focus positions of adjacent optical breakthroughs”) such that a local energy density of an energy input into the processing area by the pulse energy of the respective laser pulses is minimized (Page 7 line 20 “the fluence of the laser pulse can then also be decreased below the already explained threshold value, because a tissue-separating effect is still achieved due to overlapping of zones of interaction. The individual laser pulse then no longer securely generates an optical breakthrough; the separation of tissue is caused only if the zones of interaction overlap. This allows pulse energies that are orders of magnitude below those of the state of the art”) along the path direction, (Page 4 line 35 “The inventive minimization of the distance between centers of interaction, e.g. of the distance
between the focus positions of adjacent optical breakthroughs, according to variant 1 allows the processing pulse energy to be decreased. The parameter describing the pulse energy is the fluence, i.e. the energy per area or the areal density of energy”)
wherein at least one boundary condition is preset in the optimization method that a local power density along the path direction satisfies a preset local power density condition, (e.g. Page 13 line 36 “third variant modifies the second variant such that the fluence F of each laser pulse only
exceeds the threshold value M at the most by an excessive energy of between 3 and 3.5 J/cm2. The fluence Fis then kept below the dotted line of Fig. 6”)
and ascertaining the row distance from the unit area and the pulse distance. (see figs. 10,11,12 and Page 14 lines 10-35, particularly “depending on the intervals. In this case, the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... )”)
Regarding Claim 11, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
ascertaining the pulse distance depending on a pulse distance specification received by the control device, and ascertaining the row distance depending on the pulse distance and the unit area, wherein the row distance results from a division of the unit area by the pulse distance. (Page 14 line 29 “If the zones of interaction 30 overlapping each other in the x direction are displaced in the y direction, further overlaps will be achieved, so that in spite of the actually just one overlap in the x direction a three- or five-fold overlap of zones of interaction is achieved in the y direction, depending on the intervals. In this case, the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... ).”)
Regarding Claim 12, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
ascertaining the row distance depending on a row distance specification received by the control device, and ascertaining the pulse distance depending on the row distance and the unit area, wherein the pulse distance results from a division of the unit area by the row distance. (Page 14 line 29 “If the zones of interaction 30 overlapping each other in the x direction are displaced in the y direction, further overlaps will be achieved, so that in spite of the actually just one overlap in the x direction a three- or five-fold overlap of zones of interaction is achieved in the y direction, depending on the intervals. In this case, the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... ).”)
Regarding Claim 13, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
retrieving a preset range of values (see figs. 6-7) of an admissible pulse energy of the laser pulses for processing the processing area, (Page 13 line 35 “A third variant modifies the second variant such that the fluence F of each laser pulse only exceeds the threshold value M at the most by an excessive energy of between 3 and 3.5 J/cm2. The fluence Fis then kept below the dotted line of Fig. 6” including at least a lower threshold value of the admissible pulse energy, (Page 13 line 4 “threshold value M… an optical breakthrough with an ensuing plasma bubble is generated only at a fluence above the threshold value”)
and ascertaining a pulse energy to be adjusted of the respective laser pulses depending on the lower threshold value of the admissible pulse energy (Page 13 line 15 “All variants are based on the course of the threshold value M for the fluence F as a function of the distance a. This dependence is approximated by the following formula: M = 3.3 J/cm2 ~ (2.4 J/cm2) I (1 + (a/r2)2 ), wherein r is a parameter representing the average range of influence and is located between 3 and 10 μm”) according to a preset relation. (see fig. 6 and Page 13 line 36 “A third variant modifies the second variant such that the fluence F of each laser pulse only exceeds the threshold value M at the most by an excessive energy of between 3 and 3.5 J/cm2. The fluence Fis then kept below the dotted line of Fig. 6”)
Regarding Claim 14, Muhlhoff discloses all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further discloses:
retrieving a preset range of values (see figs. 6-7) of an admissible pulse energy of the laser pulses for processing the processing area, (Page 13 line 35 “A third variant modifies the second variant such that the fluence F of each laser pulse only exceeds the threshold value M at the most by an excessive energy of between 3 and 3.5 J/cm2. The fluence Fis then kept below the dotted line of Fig. 6” including at least a lower threshold value of the admissible pulse energy, (Page 13 line 4 “threshold value M… an optical breakthrough with an ensuing plasma bubble is generated only at a fluence above the threshold value”)
and ascertaining a pulse energy to be adjusted of the respective laser pulses depending on the lower threshold value of the admissible pulse energy (Page 13 line 15 “All variants are based on the course of the threshold value M for the fluence F as a function of the distance a. This dependence is approximated by the following formula: M = 3.3 J/cm2 ~ (2.4 J/cm2) I (1 + (a/r2)2 ), wherein r is a parameter representing the average range of influence and is located between 3 and 10 μm”) according to a preset relation. (see fig. 6 and Page 13 line 36 “A third variant modifies the second variant such that the fluence F of each laser pulse only exceeds the threshold value M at the most by an excessive energy of between 3 and 3.5 J/cm2. The fluence Fis then kept below the dotted line of Fig. 6”)
wherein the preset relation has a value between 1.25 and 4, preferably of 2.2. (ibid. see fig. 6 as depicted, the maximum admissible value of region 18.2 is a ratio which falls within the claimed range. See MPEP 2131.03.)
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(s) 8, 9, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muhlhoff in view of Lai et al., US 6,210,401.
Regarding Claims 8 and 9*, Muhlhoff teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,(* see claim warning above)
Muhlhoff further teaches:
(Claim 8 representative) Ascertaining the pulse distance according to a preset optimization method, (Page 4, line 35 “distance between the focus positions of adjacent optical breakthroughs”)
wherein the optimization method is configured to parameterize the pulse distance such that a local energy density of an energy input into the processing area by the pulse energy of the respective laser pulses is minimized along the path direction, (Page 7 line 20 “the fluence of the laser pulse can then also be decreased below the already explained threshold value, because a tissue-separating effect is still achieved due to overlapping of zones of interaction. The individual laser pulse then no longer securely generates an optical breakthrough; the separation of tissue is caused only if the zones of interaction overlap. This allows pulse energies that are orders of magnitude below those of the state of the art”)
and ascertaining the row distance from the unit area and the pulse distance. (see figs. 10,11,12 and Page 14 lines 10-35, particularly “depending on the intervals. In this case, the selection of the intervals in the x direction or in the y direction, respectively, allows any desired factors of overlap (2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, ... )”)
Muhlhoff does not appear to clearly articulate:
wherein at least one boundary condition is preset in the optimization method that the pulse distance is greater than or equal to or larger than the effective diameter,
However, Lai teaches a method for laser-based corneal surgery (see abstract) which includes executing a given path with a boundary condition that the pulse distance is greater than or equal to or larger than the effective diameter (see fig. 7A).
Lai is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser corneal surgery.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Muhlhoff to specify a boundary condition for at least one control path during the course of surgery in which the pulse distance is greater than or equal to or larger than the effective diameter, as suggested by Lai.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to avoid plume as suggested by Lai. (Claim 20 line 45 “The inventive pattern avoids the problem of plume by not overlapping the laser pulses of any one layer, and overcomes the problems of prior art ridge and groove formation by uniformly depositing laser energy over the surface to be etched.”)
Regarding Claim 15, Muhlhoff teaches all of the limitations of parent claim 1,
Muhlhoff further teaches:
comparing the minimum local energy dose to an admissible local energy dose range, (Page 13 line 12 “The instrument 1 may be operated in an operational range 18 according to Fig. 6 which may be defined by various boundary conditions.” Including an admissible energy dose range, see fig. 6, 18.2 and Page 13 line 33 “the fluence F is, of course, always above the threshold value M, … such that the fluence F of each laser pulse only exceeds the threshold value M at the most by an excessive energy of between 3 and 3.5 J/cm2. The fluence Fis then kept below the dotted line of Fig. 6.”)
Muhlhoff differs from the claimed invention in that:
Muhlhoff does not appear to clearly articulate: increasing the pulse energy to be adjusted by a predetermined correction value upon falling below the admissible local energy dose range, and reducing the pulse energy to be adjusted by a predetermined correction value upon exceeding the admissible local energy dose range.
However, Lai teaches a method for laser-based corneal surgery (see abstract) which includes a laser beam intensity monitor (Col. 6 line 40) and laser beam intensity adjustment means (col. 6 line 41) for maintaining constant energy level (ibid.)
Lai is analogous art because it is from the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention and other references of laser corneal surgery.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have modified the teachings of Muhlhoff to include actively monitoring that the laser beam intensity falls within the operational range; as well as means for adjusting the intensity accordingly, as suggested by Lai.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application could have been motivated to make this modification in order to maintain a constant energy level in operation, as suggested by Lai. (col. 6 line 40-41).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure;
Arba-Mosquera, US Pg-Pub 2021/0052424 – which teaches many of the features of the claimed invention, see e.g. figs. 1-3.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA T SANDERS whose telephone number is (571)272-5591. The examiner can normally be reached Generally Monday through Friday.
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, Mohammad Ali can be reached at 571-272-4105. 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.
/J.T.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2119
/MOHAMMAD ALI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2119
Prosecution Insights