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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/05/2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election of Group 1 (claims 18-25) with traverse in the reply filed on 03/06/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that Sedky (DE 102017207529 A1) does not disclose all the limitations of instant claim 18, which is needed to provide evidence of a lack of shared special technical features in the instant application. Applicant argues:
For example, independent claim 18 recites the limitations: the planning device is configured to determine at least one three- dimensional pattern of target points of the cornea for a refractive correction of the eye treated by the pretreatment by the radiating of the pulsed laser beam to cause intrastromal photodisruption of a region of the cornea predefined by the pattern of target points thereby causing a change in volume of the cornea
Contrary to this, one skilled in the would understand that Sedky discloses photodisruption as a cutting mechanism as a consequence of the laser beam, whereas according to the present application, "The three-dimensional pattern of target points is determined in particular in such a way that the intrastromal photodisruption does not lead to the production of cuts in the cornea." Claim 18 reflects this in the above cited passage. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully traverses the Unity of Invention rejection/Restriction Requirement on this basis. At the very least, withdrawn claims 26-34 should be subject to rejoinder upon claims 18-36 being found to be allowable. (03/06/2026 Remarks, page 12)
The broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of limitation “the planning device is configured to determine at least one three-dimensional pattern of target points of the cornea for a refractive correction of the eye treated by the pretreatment by the radiating of the pulsed laser beam to cause intrastromal photodisruption of a region of the cornea predefined by the pattern of target points thereby causing a change in volume of the cornea” does not preclude the use of a cutting action from a laser. Sedky discloses a laser with coordinates for cutting the cornea ([0033-0034]) in order to remove a set corneal volume from the cornea to change the refractive index ([0032]). The laser cuts are targeted with 3D coordinates ([0035] – planning device creates target points, [0033] – target points serve as three-dimensional laser coordinates) and the cuts are produced via contactless photodistruption with a laser (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102” for the full rejection of claim 18). The quoted language from the specification related to the laser’s photodistruption not being used for cutting (page 5, lines 5-9) would be considered an improper importation of claim language (see MPEP 2111.01).
Therefore, the requirement is still deemed proper and is made FINAL.
Claims 26-34 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Additionally, Applicant should be aware of the possibility of rejoinder if the elected invention is found allowable, as discussed in MPEP 1893.03(d):
If an examiner (1) determines that the claims do not meet the unity of invention requirement and (2) requires election of a single invention, when all of the claims drawn to the elected invention are allowable (i.e., meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112), the nonelected invention(s) should be considered for rejoinder. Any nonelected product claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable product claim, and any nonelected process claim that requires all the limitations of an allowable process claim, should be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Any nonelected processes of making and/or using an allowable product should be considered for rejoinder.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 03/06/2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 18-34 are currently pending. Claims 26-34 are withdrawn as being drawn to non-elected inventions. Claims 1-17 are canceled. Claims 18-25 are under examination.
Priority
The instant application (filed on 04/05/2024) is a national stage of PCT/EP2022/077569 (filed on 10/04/2022), filed under 35 USC 371. Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for foreign priority based on application DE 10 2021 125 782.4 filed on 10/05/2021. It is noted, however, that Applicant has not filed an English translation of the certified foreign application.
Instant claims 18-34 are supported within foreign application DE 10 2021 125 782.4 based on the attached translation from Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com). Therefore, the effective filing date of instant claims 18-25 is 10/05/2021 and all prior art will be examined with respect to this date.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
• Claims 18: Adding a comma to “pattern of target points, thereby causing a change in volume of the cornea” makes the limitation more understandable.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 18-25 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.
Claim 18: In the preamble, Claim 18 is directed to a computerized planning device. However, the claim also contains descriptions of elements which are not part of the planning device such as the pretreatment (previous surgery), laser device, and control device for the laser. The planning device is only described with “the planning device is configured to determine at least one three-dimensional pattern of target points of the cornea for a refractive correction of the eye treated by the pretreatment by the radiating of the pulsed laser beam to cause intrastromal photodisruption of a region of the cornea predefined by the pattern of target points.” Because the pretreatment, laser device, and control device for the laser (which comprises the planning system as stated in claim 26) are not claimed as structural components of the planning system, these limitations do not have patentable weight as part of claim 18. The claim is indefinite because the structural scope of the computerized planning device is unclear. Claim 18 is currently interpreted as being directed to the planning device which generates control data for a laser device and does not contain the pretreatment, laser device, or control device for the laser.
Claim 18: is directed to both a product and a process, which renders the claim indefinite. MPEP 2173.05(p).II states:
A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
The limitation “wherein the pretreatment includes removal of parts of the cornea of the eye by way of producing at least one interface between parts of the cornea” is a method step. This rejection may be overcome by amending the claim to recite an apparatus configured for the above limitation, rather than actual method steps for producing the interface.
Claim 18: In line 4, “the pretreatment” lacks a clear antecedent basis between “a refractive pretreatment” or “a pretreatment” in the preamble.
Claim 18: In line 4, “the cornea” lacks a clear antecedent basis.
Claim 22: In the preamble, Claim 18 is directed to a computerized planning device. However, the claim also contains descriptions of elements which are not part of the planning device such as the pretreatment (previous surgery), laser device, and control device for the laser. Because the pretreatment, laser device, and control device for the laser (which comprises the planning system as stated in claim 26) are not claimed as structural components of the planning system, these limitations do not have patentable weight as part of claim 18. Claim 22 further describes the interface in a limitation which would similarly not have patentable weight and the alternative limitation “wherein the planning device is configured to determine the pattern of target points in a position anterior to the interface” is the only limitation which is being considered by the examiner.
Claim 24: The term “the pattern” renders claim 24 indefinite due to potentially referring to different patterns and having a potential lack of antecedent basis. While “the pattern” likely refers to the pattern of target points used earlier, in other instances the pattern is accompanied by a term describing what the grouping is a pattern of and would benefit from a similar term being used in Claim 24 (the target points are being used to determine the pattern rather than being described as the pattern: “wherein the planning device is configured to determine the pattern with a plurality of ring- shaped series of target points arranged next to one another which form a first connection structure to the interface” or “wherein the planning device is configured to determine the pattern with a plurality of ring-shaped series of target points”).
Claims 19-21, 23, and 25 are rejected for being dependent on rejected 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.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 18-25 are directed to a signal per se (“computerized planning device” being a program doing a computation).
Step 1
The invention in claims 18-25 is not to a statutory subject matter as the claims recite a “computerized planning device” (which is interpreted as a computer program and a “signal per se”). The claims can be amended to recite “non-transitory” forms of signal transmission (see MPEP 2106.03 II). Because the claims could be amended to fall within a statutory category, the following eligibility analysis is performed.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 18 recites abstract ideas in the form of mental processes that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsection (III)).
Regarding Claim 18, the limitation “configured to determine at least one three-dimensional pattern of target points of the cornea for a refractive correction of the eye treated by the pretreatment” could be performed by the human mind
Step 2A, Prong Two
For the claim 18 limitation from Step 2A Prong One, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. The mental processes (determination of target points) are not integrated into a practical application as the determination result is merely used to produce target coordinates which could be used for a laser treatment. The laser treatment element (“by the radiating of the pulsed laser beam to cause intrastromal photodisruption of a region of the cornea predefined by the pattern of target points thereby causing a change in volume of the cornea”) is not claimed as part of the planning device.
Step 2B
For the claim 18 limitation from Step 2A Prong One, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The mental processes (determination of target points) are merely used to produce target coordinates which could be used for a laser treatment and the laser treatment element is not claimed as part of the planning device.
Dependent claims 19-25 further define the abstract idea of mentally making determinations of the pattern of target coordinates.
Therefore, claims 18-25 are directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Additionally, because the claims could be amended to fall within a statutory category, the subsequent eligibility analysis found claims 18-25 are directed to a judicial exception, as abstract ideas (mental processes), without significantly more.
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.
Claims 18 and 22 are rejected under U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sedky (DE 102017207529 A1, see previously cited). Note a machine translation via Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com) is used to interpret the disclosure in Sedky – see previously attached for copy of translation.
Regarding Claim 18, Sedky discloses a computerized planning device that generates control data for a laser device of a treatment apparatus ([0001], [0042] – a new lenticule to remove must be calculated after a previous SMILE treatment) that facilitates refractive correction of an eye after a refractive pretreatment, or after refractive correction of an eye that includes a pretreatment (this preamble limitation describes a treatment apparatus and not the computerized planning device)
• wherein the pretreatment includes removal of parts of the cornea of the eye by way of producing at least one interface between parts of the cornea (see 112(b) as the pretreatment is not a structural component of the planning device);
• wherein the laser device is configured to modify the cornea of the eye by radiating in a pulsed laser beam and the treatment apparatus comprises a control device that controls the laser device (see 112(b) as the laser device is not a structural component of the planning device); and
• wherein the control device is configured to control the laser device to focus the laser beam on target points of the cornea and to modify the cornea by application of photodisruption (see 112(b) as the control device is not a structural component of the planning device);
• wherein:
- the planning device is configured to determine at least one three-dimensional pattern of target points of the cornea for a refractive correction of the eye ([0035] – planning device creates target points) treated by the pretreatment ([0010] – correcting a previous treatment) by the radiating of the pulsed laser beam to cause intrastromal photodisruption of a region of the cornea predefined by the pattern of target points ([0033] – “As already mentioned, the laser beam 6 is focused in a focus 19 in the cornea 19, and the position of the focus 19 in the cornea is adjusted so that energy from laser radiation pulses focusing at different points is introduced into the tissue of the cornea 17 to create the cutting surface”; photodisruption would be understood as the cutting mechanism of the laser beam) thereby causing a change in volume of the cornea ([0042] – volume changes occur as a volume is cut from the corneal tissue).
Therefore, Claim 18 is anticipated by Sedky.
Regarding Claim 22, the computerized planning device according to Claim 18 is anticipated by Sedky, as indicated hereinabove. Sedky further discloses:
1) the interface is produced by a pretreatment by application of photodisruption, a refractive pretreatment, by a lenticule extraction pretreatment, a LASIK pretreatment or a SMILE pretreatment (see 112(b) as the pretreatment is not a structural component of the planning device); or
2) wherein the planning device is configured to determine the pattern of target points ([0035] - target points) in a position anterior to the interface ([0057] – “second variant of the incision technique involves creating a secondary lenticule incision above (anterior to) the existing interface and connecting it to the existing interface by means of a lenticule margin incision”).
Therefore, Claim 22 is anticipated by Sedky.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under U.S.C 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sedky (DE 102017207529 A1, see previously cited), as evidenced by Bissmann (US PG Pub 2011/0251601 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”). Note a machine translation via Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com) is used to interpret the disclosure in Sedky - see previously attached for copy of translation.
Regarding Claim 19, the computerized planning device according to Claim 18 is anticipated by Sedky, as indicated hereinabove. Sedky further discloses:
(1) the planning device is further configured to determine, for the refractive correction of the eye that includes the pretreatment, at least one interface pattern ([0056] – the pretreatment creates an interface) of target points of the cornea ([0035] – target points are used to determine laser application) which, in the pretreatment of the cornea, brings about the production of at least one interface between parts of the cornea ([0056-0057] – the pretreatment creates an interface) where plasma bubbles are produced as a result of photodisruption ([0031]); or
(2) wherein the planning device is configured to determine, for the refractive correction of the eye after the pretreatment, the pattern of target points ([0035] – target points used to determine laser application) in such a way that, during the refractive correction, the pattern of target points causes plasma bubbles to ([0031]) be produced in the pretreatment ([0056-0057] – by either variant presented, the existing interface from the pretreatment is defined in relation and connected to the new/planned interface; the existing interface being connected to the new interface allows bubbles generated by the laser energy to enter the existing interface).
Note the claim structure is interpreted as only requiring one of the numbered limitations because of the use of “or” between limitations. Sedky discloses the formation of plasma bubbles due to application of pulsed laser energy ([0031]). Sedky does not explicitly disclose an interface that absorbs a gas volume that arises as a result of photodisruption. Bissmann discusses how the application of a femtosecond laser during refractive correction produces gas bubble formation in the stromal tissue ([0005]) and that a gas layer can form near the site of the laser incision ([0011]). This suggests the gas formation and deposition in the stroma is an inherent result of the laser incision process.
Therefore, Claim 19 is anticipated by Sedky.
Regarding Claim 21, the computerized planning device according to Claim 18 is anticipated by Sedky, as indicated hereinabove. Sedky further discloses:
the planning device is configured to determine the pattern of target points ([0035] – target points used to determine the laser application) in a position adjacent to or adjoining the interface between parts of the cornea which is produced by the pretreatment ([0056-0057] – by either variant presented, the existing interface from the pretreatment is defined in relation and connected to the new/planned interface; the existing interface being connected to the new interface allows bubbles generated by the laser energy to enter the existing interface); or
wherein the planning device is configured to determine a three-dimensional shape of the pattern of target points ([0035] – planning device creates target points, [0033] – target points serve as three-dimensional laser coordinates) which causes plasma bubbles to be generated ([0031]); or
wherein the planning device comprises an interface for receiving data about the interface between parts of the cornea which is produced by the pretreatment ([0039] – data sent to the interface of the planning device for receiving data, where interface information is calculated in [0060]).
Note the claim structure is interpreted as only requiring one of the numbered limitations because of the use of “or” between limitations. Sedky discloses the formation of plasma bubbles due to application of pulsed laser energy. Sedky does not explicitly disclose at least one part of a gas volume that arises as a result of the photodisruption to be guided away into the interface. Bissmann discusses how the application of a femtosecond laser during refractive correction produces gas bubble formation in the stromal tissue ([0005]) and that a gas layer can form near the site of the laser incision ([0011]). This suggests the gas formation and deposition in the stroma is an inherent result of the laser incision process.
Therefore, Claim 21 is anticipated by Sedky.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim 20 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sedky (DE 102017207529 A1, see previously cited) in view of Sluyterman Van Langeweyde (US PG Pub 2014/0288538 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”). Note a machine translation via Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com) is used to interpret the disclosure in Sedky - see previously attached for copy of translation.
Regarding Claim 20, the computerized planning device according to Claim 18 is anticipated by Sedky, as indicated hereinabove. Sedky discloses corrective refractive treatment of the eye ([0001]) with target points ([0035]). Sedky does not disclose:
(1) the planning device is configured to determine the pattern of target points in such a way that brings about a refractive correction of the eye treated by the pretreatment of more than 0 and less than 1.5 diopters; or
(2) wherein the planning device is configured to determine a three-dimensional shape of the pattern of target points which causes at least a portion of a gas volume that arises as a result of the photodisruption to be guided away through micro-perforations in the cornea.
Note the claim structure is interpreted as only requiring one of the numbered limitations because of the use of “or” between limitations. Addressing limitation (1):
Sluyterman van Langeweyde, in the same field of endeavor of corrective eye treatment using a laser device ([0002]), teaches the amount of correction (in diopters) needed is related to the available thickness of the cornea (Figure 13, [0086]) where 1-1.5 diopters is explicitly plotted on the graph. MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” There is no evidence of an “unexpected result or criticality” on the analysis from the discussed range interpretations.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Sedky’s planning device for a refractive correction by incorporating the mathematical relationship between diopter correction and corneal thickness in Sluyterman van Langeweyde. This would have been obvious because both Sedky and Sluyterman van Langeweyde discuss corrective eye treatments using lasers and Sluyterman van Langeweyde provides a deterministic relationship between corneal thickness, which is altered by the treatment, and the desired correction. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Sedky by incorporating the mathematical relationship between diopter correction and corneal thickness in Sluyterman van Langeweyde.
Therefore, Claim 20 is obvious over Sedky in view of Sluyterman van Langeweyde.
Claims 23-25 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Sedky (DE 102017207529 A1, see previously cited) in view of Wiechmann (US PG Pub 2008/0319428 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”). Note a machine translation via Espacenet (https://worldwide.espacenet.com) is used to interpret the disclosure in Sedky - see previously attached for copy of translation.
Regarding Claim 23, the computerized planning device according to Claim 18 is anticipated by Sedky, as indicated hereinabove. Sedky discloses the planning device creates target points for the laser beam ([0033-0035]). However, Sedky does not disclose the planning device is configured to determine the pattern of target points with a plurality of circular planes of target points arranged one over another or with a plurality of ring-shaped series of target points.
Wiechmann, in the same field of endeavor of corrective eye treatment using a laser device ([0002]), teaches target points which are arranged along a curved spiral path ([0035]) where each turn of the spiral defines a circular plane with circular coordinates ([0175]). This spiral arrangement is described as being advantageous because it facilitates continuous focus shifting in the laser ([0103]). Wiechmann teaches this technique of using three-dimensional target points arranged in a spiral is known in the literature ([0173]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Sedky’s planning device for refractive correction by incorporating the target points arranged on a spiral coordinate system in Wiechmann. This would have been obvious because both Sedky and Wiechmann discuss corrective eye treatments using lasers with coordinates defined by target points and Wiechmann provides target point geometry in a spiral shape which facilitates continuous focus shifting during the laser procedure. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Sedky by incorporating the target points arranged on a spiral coordinate system in Wiechmann.
Therefore, Claim 23 is obvious over Sedky in view of Wiechmann.
Regarding Claim 24, the computerized planning device according to Claim 23 is obvious over Sedky in view of Wiechmann, as indicated hereinabove. Sedky discloses the planning device creates target points for the laser beam ([0033-0035]). Additionally, the planning module takes into account making a connection with a previous interface created during the pretreatment ([0056]). However, Sedky does not disclose:
(1) the planning device is configured to determine the circular planes of target points arranged one over another with a position in the cornea, a shape or a number of which bring about the refractive correction of the eye treated by the pretreatment; or
(2) wherein the planning device is configured to determine the pattern with a plurality of ring- shaped series of target points arranged next to one another which form a first connection structure to the interface; or
(3) wherein the planning device is configured to determine the pattern with a plurality of ring- shaped series of target points arranged next to one another which form a second connection structure between the circular planes of target points or to the first connection structure to the interface.
Note the claim structure is interpreted as only requiring one of the numbered limitations because of the use of “or” between limitations. All of these limitations describe ring-shaped series of target points which are used to target the laser to perform a particular task.
Wiechmann, in the same field of endeavor of corrective eye treatment using a laser device ([0002]), teaches target points which are arranged along a curved spiral path ([0035]) where each turn of the spiral defines a circular plane with circular coordinates ([0175]). This spiral arrangement is described as being advantageous because it facilitates the continuous focus shifting in the laser ([0103]). Wiechmann teaches this technique of using three-dimensional target points arranged in a spiral is known in the literature ([0173]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Sedky’s planning device for refractive correction by incorporating the target points arranged on a spiral coordinate system in Wiechmann. This would have been obvious because both Sedky and Wiechmann discuss corrective eye treatments using lasers with coordinates defined by target points and Wiechmann provides target point geometry in a spiral shape which facilitates continuous focus shifting during the laser procedure. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Sedky by incorporating the target points arranged on a spiral coordinate system in Wiechmann.
Therefore, Claim 24 is obvious over Sedky in view of Wiechmann.
Regarding Claim 25, the computerized planning device according to Claim 23 is obvious over Sedky in view of Wiechmann, as indicated hereinabove. Sedky further discloses:
1) the planning device is configured to determine the control data for the laser device in such a way that, in order to form the first connection structure, the target points are produced ([0033-0035] – target points for where the incisions are made) in an order from posterior to the interface to anterior to the interface ([0056] – “first variant of the incision technique provides that a secondary lenticule incision 23 is made below (posterior) the existing interface (cap incision 22 of the first treatment) and is connected to the existing interface by the lenticule margin incision 25”; [0057] – “A second variant of the incision technique involves creating a secondary lenticule incision above (anterior to) the existing interface and connecting it to the existing interface by means of a lenticule margin incision”).
However, Sedky does not disclose: 1) a ring-shaped series of target points;
2) wherein the planning device is configured to determine the control data for the laser device in such a way that the plurality of circular planes of target points arranged one over another are produced in an order proceeding from the plane closest to the interface; or
3) wherein the planning device is configured to determine the control data for the laser device in such a way that the position, the shape or the number of circular planes of target points arranged one over another are produced by blocking out laser pulses.
Note the claim structure is interpreted as only requiring one of the numbered limitations because of the use of “or” between limitations. When examining limitation 1:
Wiechmann, in the same field of endeavor of corrective eye treatment using a laser device ([0002]), teaches target points which are arranged along a curved spiral path ([0035]) where each turn of the spiral defines a circular plane with circular coordinates ([0175]). This spiral arrangement is described as being advantageous because it facilitates the continuous focus shifting in the laser ([0103]). Wiechmann teaches this technique of using three-dimensional target points arranged in a spiral is known in the literature ([0173]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Sedky’s planning device for refractive correction by incorporating the target points arranged on a spiral coordinate system in Wiechmann. This would have been obvious because both Sedky and Wiechmann discuss corrective eye treatments using lasers with coordinates defined by target points and Wiechmann provides target point geometry in a spiral shape which facilitates continuous focus shifting during the laser procedure. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the device of Sedky by incorporating the target points arranged on a spiral coordinate system in Wiechmann.
Therefore, Claim 25 is obvious over Sedky in view of Wiechmann.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached on 571-270-3061. 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796