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 species I(b), II(a), III(a), IV(a), V(f), and VI(a) (corresponding to claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, 12-22, 25, 34, 37-39 and 42) in the reply filed on 3/25/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious burden in examining all claims because a generic claim is presented and some of the groups include subspecies that may not be mutually exclusive and/or might relate to single embodiments. This is not found persuasive because of the reasons set forth in the election/restriction requirement of 1/29/2026. Namely, the different species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries) due to the different structural features required by the different gain media and power modulation, different area of the eye to which treatment is applied to produce different effects, and different effects of the treatment on the backscatter patterns. As shown in the cited prior art below, backscatter detection/monitoring is utilized in a variety of procedures with a variety of hardware structures, each requiring a different field of search. Although Applicant indicated that some of the groups include subspecies that may not be mutually exclusive and/or might relate to single embodiments, the traversal does not point to any portion of the original disclosure indicating that the various subspecies are performed in combination, and Applicant has not indicated that the various subspecies are obvious variants. The examiner maintains that the subspecies are mutually exclusive because a first invention (subspecies) would not infringe a second invention (subspecies), and the second invention (subspecies) would not infringe the first invention (subspecies) because they are not required to be provided in combination. See MPEP 806.05. Applicant is respectfully reminded of the right to rejoinder of all claims should allowable subject matter be presented in a claim that these species are dependent thereon.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim 39 is 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. Claim 39 requires that the treatment beam does not contribute to the backscatter pattern, but claim 2 (from which claim 39 depends) requires that the ”detected microbubbles result[] from the treatment effect.” It is unclear how the treatment beam can “not contribute to the backscatter pattern” when the backscatter pattern results from the treatment beam. Clarification is respectfully requested.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 6-8, 13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 34, 37-39 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (2) as being anticipated by Benson et al. (US 2023/0029661, hereinafter “Benson”).
In regards to claims 1, 2 and 42, Benson discloses a dual-beam laser treatment device/method of using said device/computer-readable medium (par. 0084, the controller and processor necessarily being controlled by a computer-readable medium) for determining treatment effects based on backscatter detection (Fig. 4), the dual-beam laser treatment device/method comprising:
a first laser supply/applying using a first laser supply, wherein the first laser supply emits a treatment beam applied to a first region of an eye, and wherein the treatment beam creates a treatment effect (element 21, par. 0077, “treatment laser module”);
a second laser supply/applying using a second laser supply, wherein the second laser supply emits a probe beam applied to a second region of the eye, and wherein the probe beam creates a backscatter pattern based on detected microbubbles (element 27, pars. 0016, 0073, 0078, 0115, “eye probe system”);
a backscatter detector/determining using a backscatter detector, wherein the backscatter detector detects the backscatter pattern (pars. 0081, 0092, “bubble formation is detected”);
a processor/determining, wherein the processor is configured to determine the treatment effect based on the backscatter pattern (pars. 0015, 0092-0093, 0107); and
a power modulator/modulating the power, wherein the power modulator is configured to modulate a power level of the first laser supply based on the treatment effect determined by the processor (pars. 0015, 0107, 0109, 0117; par. 0092-0093 describing a first and second setting for the treatment beam).
In regards to claim 6, a power output of the first laser supply is determined before the treatment beam is emitted (par. 0092, the initial laser power).
In regards to claim 7, the method further comprises increasing a power output of the first laser supply while applying the treatment beam using the first laser supply; and
scanning the treatment beam in a pre-determined pattern about a first region of the eye (par. 0092).
In regards to claim 8, the first region of the eye comprises an iris of the eye (Fig. 3a-3c, par. 0014, the beam is scanned about the iris to damage the melanin cells in the trabecular meshwork).
In regards to claim 13, a wavelength of the treatment beam comprises a visible light (par. 0113, “green”).
In regards to claim 15, the method necessarily further comprises determining a power output of the second laser supply before applying the treatment beam as it necessarily has some determined initial value (par. 0078).
In regards to claim 18, a wavelength of the probe beam comprises infrared radiation (par. 0044).
In regards to claim 20, an incidence angle of the probe beam relative to the treatment beam is less than or equal to 75° (par. 0079, “substantially coincident”).
In regards to claim 22, the backscatter pattern is based on a size of one or more microbubbles (par. 0047, “size of the micro-cavitation”).
In regards to claim 34, the treatment effect comprises a microbubble formation (e.g., par. 0045).
In regards to claim 37, the method further comprises determining a first setting for the treatment beam; and
determining a second setting for the treatment beam based on the treatment effect (pars. 0092, 0109, a first and second laser power or duration).
In regards to claim 38, the method further comprises distinguishing the first setting and the second setting based on treatment beam characteristics,
wherein the treatment beam characteristics comprise one or more of a wavelength, a color, a collimated beam, a beam angle, a beam diameter, beam dimensions, and a contribution of the treatment beam to the backscatter pattern (pars. 0092, 0109, the first and second powers are set based on the contribution of the treatment beam to the backscatter pattern, as reflected in the generation of microbubbles).
In regards to claim 39, (as best understood) the treatment beam does not contribute to the backscatter pattern (pars. 0113-0116, the light of the treatment beam is in the green wavelength, and the probe beam is in the infrared range, so the green light of the treatment beam is not detected by the infrared light detector of the probe system).
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 (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 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.
Claims 4, 12, 14, 19, 21 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benson in view of Homer (US 11,278,452, hereinafter “Homer”).
Benson discloses the essential features of the claimed invention, including providing a first and second laser sources (par. 0016), but does not expressly disclose:
that the gain medium of the first and second lasers comprise semiconductor materials layered to form a diode;
wherein a wavelength of the treatment beam comprises infrared radiation;
wherein a wavelength of the probe beam comprises a green light;
wherein the backscatter detector comprises an optical sensor, and wherein the optical sensor comprises an optical filter that passes the probe beam and limits passage of other light; or
that the method further comprises modulating the power using a Pockels cell.
However, Homer in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment devices teaches:
that the gain medium of the first and second lasers comprise semiconductor materials layered to form a diode (col. 5, lines 30-45) to provide the predictable results of substituting known materials according to their known functions to generate the laser light in a predictable way;
wherein a wavelength of the treatment beam comprises infrared radiation and wherein a wavelength of the probe beam comprises a green light (col. 18, lines 9-26) to provide the predictable results of obtaining more accurate measurements;
wherein the backscatter detector comprises an optical sensor, and wherein the optical sensor comprises an optical filter that passes the probe beam and limits passage of other light (col. 18, lines 9-26) to provide the predictable results of obtaining more accurate measurements; and
that the method further comprises modulating the power using a Pockels cell (col. 18, lines 27-57) to provide the predictable results of accurate control of laser power with a means having a low power requirement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Benson by providing a method wherein
the gain medium of the first and second lasers comprise semiconductor materials layered to form a diode to provide the predictable results of substituting known materials according to their known functions to generate the laser light in a predictable way;
wherein a wavelength of the treatment beam comprises infrared radiation and wherein a wavelength of the probe beam comprises a green light to provide the predictable results of obtaining more accurate measurements;
wherein the backscatter detector comprises an optical sensor, and wherein the optical sensor comprises an optical filter that passes the probe beam and limits passage of other light to provide the predictable results of obtaining more accurate measurements; and
that the method further comprises modulating the power using a Pockels cell to provide the predictable results of accurate control of laser power with a means having a low power requirement.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16 and 17 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. Although the prior art appears to disclose the features of the independent claims, the prior art does not appear to teach the steps of (or motivation for) increasing a power output of the second laser supply while applying the probe beam using the second laser supply; and scanning the probe beam in a pre-determined pattern about a second region of the eye wherein the second region of the eye comprises a first region of the eye, the first region of the eye being scanned in the pre-determined pattern by the treatment beam. The prior art sets forth the steps and motivation for increasing the intensity of the treatment beam to provide the appropriate intensity to provide treatment as reflected in the generation of microbubbles, but does not teach increasing the intensity of the probe laser beam or set forth any reason to do so.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brinkmann et al. (US 2006/0111697) and Muhlhoff et al. (US 2006/0106371) are other examples of treating the eye and monitoring the backscatter from microbubbles accordingly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL W KAHELIN whose telephone number is (571)272-8688. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8-5.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571)270-5213. 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.
/MICHAEL W KAHELIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights