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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 25-50 are currently pending and under investigation.
Claim Objections
Claims 28 and 41 objected to because of the following informalities: “of at least one structures based on the determined movement” and “a scelra”. The examiner will interpret this as “of at least one structure based on the determined movement” and “a sclera”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 42 objected to because of the following informalities: “at least one feature comprise at least one”. The examiner will interpret this as “at least one feature comprises at least one” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 25-29, 36-42, and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qaisi et. al, (US 20210186753 A1, published 06/24/2021, hereinafter known as Al-Qaisi) in view of Van de Velde (US 6789900 B2, published 09/14/2004).
Regarding claims 25, 38, and 50, Al-Qaisi teaches an imaging and treatment system and subsequent method for imaging and treating an eye condition comprising: a scanning based imager arranged to image at least a portion of a patient's eye (OCT scanner 166 in Fig. 9, [0040]); a treatment laser arranged to treat a patient's eye with a laser pulse [0026]; a controller (OCT controller 167 in Fig. 9, [0040]) configured to: capture image frames [0030], using the scanning based imager, as a plurality of subsequently captured image strips [0045]; and perform image strip tracking to determine a movement of at least one feature in a most recently captured image strip relative to at least one corresponding feature in a corresponding image strip of a previously captured image frame [0048].
However, Al-Qaisi does not teach preventing a treatment laser from treating the patient's eye when the determined movement of the at least one feature exceeds a safety threshold.
Van de Velde teaches a combination of a confocal scanning laser ophthalmoscope and external laser sources is used for microphotocoagulation purposes (Abstract). Other elements in the optical construction of the therapeutic laser include a safety shutter, which is a fail-safe mechanism that blocks the laser beam, if necessary, (Col. 11, lines 48-52).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the safety mechanism of Van de Velde with the method of imaging and treatment of Al-Qaisi because this allows for specific pulsating patterns of energy with safer constraints (Van de Velde, Col. 11, lines 50-52).
Regarding claims 26 and 39, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 25 and 38 as described above, wherein Al-Qaisi further teaches the controller is further configured to: adjust a treatment location of the treatment laser within the patient's eye based on the movement of the at least one feature [“real time feedback may include signals about the position…the surgeon may update the treatment plan in real time…”, 0065].
However, Al-Qaisi does not teach the adjustment of the treatment location when the movement of the at least one feature does not exceed the safety threshold.
Van de Velde teaches other elements in the optical construction of the therapeutic laser include a safety shutter, which is a fail-safe mechanism that blocks the laser beam, if necessary, (Col. 11, lines 48-50).
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the safety mechanism of Van de Velde with the method of imaging and treatment of Al-Qaisi because this allows for specific pulsating patterns of energy with safer constraints (Van de Velde, Col. 11, lines 50-52).
Regarding claims 27 and 40, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 26 and 39 as described above, wherein Al-Qaisi further teaches the treatment location is specified in a treatment plan that is registered to a captured image frame of the patient's eye [“a treatment plan may be based on…an OCT image provided during treatment”, 0064].
Regarding claims 28 and 41, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 25 and 38 as described above, wherein Al-Qaisi further teaches tracking motion of at least one structures based on the determined movement of the at least one feature, the at least one structures comprising at least one of: an eye; a retina; a floater; a pupil; a lens; a sclera; and a cornea [“methods by using OCT to identify a vitreous floater”, 0026].
Regarding claims 29 and 42, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 25 and 38 as described above, wherein Al-Qaisi further teaches the at least one feature comprises at least one stationary feature within the patient's eye [0060].
Regarding claim 36, Al-Qaisi teaches the method of imaging and treatment of claim 25 as described above, wherein Al-Qaisi further teaches the scanning based imager comprises at least one of: a scanning laser ophthalmoscopy (SLO) imager [0047]; and an optical coherence tomography (OCT) imager [0027].
Regarding claims 37 and 49, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 25 and 38 as described above, wherein an eye condition treated using the imaging and treatment system comprises one or more of: symptomatic vitreous opacities (SVO); floaters; age-related macular degeneration (AMD); vitreomacular traction syndrome (VTS); diabetic retinopathy; cataracts; choroidal neovascularization; micro-aneurysm; glaucoma; epiretinal membrane (ERM); retinal tears and detachments; and central or branch vein occlusions (“methods by using OCT to identify a vireous floater”, Al-Qaisi, [0026]).
Claims 30-35 and 43-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Qaisi in view of Van de Velde, and in further view of Yang (US 20170188822 A1, published 07/06/2017).
Regarding claims 30 and 43, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 29 and 42 as described above.
However, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde do not teach that the controller is further configured to stabilize a plurality of captured image frames based on the at least one stationary feature.
Yang teaches systems and methods for real-time eye tracking using a SLO (scanning laser ophthalmoscopy) or other imaging device. Image registration can also be performed in real-time, wherein features on target images are continuously mapped or registered to the reference image as each target image is being produced, but eye motion in the subject can interfere with or prevent accurate image tracking [0036].
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the image registration and avoidance of eye motion of Yang with the method of imaging and treatment of Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde because accurate real-time image registration in ophthalmoscopy is significantly more difficult than off-line registration for a number of reasons, and this method helps alleviate that difficulty (Yang, [0036]).
Regarding claims 31 and 44, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde and Yang teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 30 and 43 as described above, wherein Al-Qaisi further teaches tracking movement of a floater across the stabilized plurality of captured image frames [0026].
Regarding claims 32 and 45, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 25 and 38 as described above.
However, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde do not teach determining the movement of the at least one feature comprises determining a translation of the at least one feature.
Yang teaches the at least one output parameter is an x translation or a y translation, [0012].
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the output parameter being a translation of Yang with the method of imaging and treatment of Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde because this approach enables the WFSLO (wide FOV FSLO) to continuously track eye location, so that AOSLO (adaptive optics scanning light ophthalmoscope) imaging becomes efficient in steering its FOV (field of view) to any ROI (region of interest) as along as it is in the steering range [0060].
Regarding claims 33 and 46, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 25 and 38 as described above.
However, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde do not teach that the controller is further configured to: determine if a current image frame being captured is complete; when it is determined that the current image frame is not complete: perform the image strip tracking to determine a relative frame transformation of the current image frame for transforming locations in the current image frame to corresponding locations in the previously captured image frame; and set a current transformation based on a combination of the relative frame transformation of the current image frame and an absolute frame transformation of the previously captured image frame transforming locations in the previously captured image frame to corresponding locations in an initial image frame; and when it is determined that the current image frame is complete: determine an absolute frame transformation of the current image frame for transforming locations in the current image frame to corresponding locations in the initial image frame; and set the current transformation based on the absolute frame transformation of the current image frame.
Yang teaches a cross-correlation based tracking algorithm will fail when the optic nerve disc appears only on the reference image or only on the target image, but not when it appears in both images [0052]. The location of AOSLO imaging FOV is passed to the WFSLO and recorded on a WFSLO image. Each AOSLO video has a unique WFSLO image to record its imaging position and size of FOV [0075]. If eye motion of the target frame m relative to the original reference frame is (x.sub.m,y.sub.m,θ.sub.m) and due to difficult eye/head rotation, this target frame m has to be updated as a new reference frame, then the future frame n will cross correlate with this frame m [0059]. At least one output parameter is an x translation or a y translation, [0012]. Each AOSLO video has a unique WFSLO image to record its imaging position and size of FOV. The WFSLO notifies its tracking status to the AOSLO, e.g., microsaccade, blink, or tracking failure. In addition, the AOSLO notifies its status to the WFSLO, e.g., data recording and AOSLO tracking. Further, the WFSLO eye-tracking updates a new reference frame when the fixation target changes to a new location [0060].
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the correctness determination and tracking features of Yang with the method of imaging and treatment of Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde because it allows the system to use a number of different approaches to achieve smooth and robust control for the one or more tracking mirrors [0061].
Regarding claims 34 and 47, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 33 and 46 as described above.
However, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde do not teach the relative frame transformation comprises one or more translations and the absolute frame transformation comprises one or more translations and rotations.
Yang teaches the at least one output parameter is an x translation or a y translation, [0012]. The location of AOSLO imaging FOV is passed to the WFSLO and recorded on a WFSLO image. Each AOSLO video has a unique WFSLO image to record its imaging position and size of FOV [0075].
Therefore, it would be obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the output parameter being a translation and recording the transformation of imaging position and size of Yang with the method of imaging and treatment of Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde because this approach enables the WFSLO to continuously track eye location, so that AOSLO imaging becomes efficient in steering its FOV to any ROI as along as it is in the steering range [0060].
Regarding claims 35 and 48, Al-Qaisi and Van de Velde and Yang teach the method of imaging and treatment of claims 34 and 47 as described above, wherein Al-Qaisi further teaches registering a treatment plan comprising one or more treatment locations of the patient's eye with the initial image frame [0027]; applying the current transformation to a next treatment location of the treatment plan to provide an adjusted next treatment location [“updating the treatment plan in real time”, 0009]; and treating the next treatment location according to the treatment plan [0009].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FIONA M KOWALKOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-2790. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Unsu Jung can be reached at 571-272-8506. 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.
/F.M.K./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792