DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed 05 May 2026. As per the amendment: claims 1, 8-13, 16-17, 20, 27-32, and 35-36 have been amended, claims 18-19 and 37-38 have been cancelled. Thus claims 1-17 and 20-36 are presently pending and under examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 9 and 10 of Remarks, filed 05 May 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11-12, 20-21, 23, 26, 28, and 30-31 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Chernyak et al. (US 2017/0128260 A1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Goldshleger et al. (US 2013/0158530 A1), as described in detail below.
Therefore, claims 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11-12, 17, 20-21, 23, 26, 28, 30-31, and 36 are now rejected under 35 USC 103 (as described in detail below).
No specific additional arguments have been presented regarding previous 35 USC 103 rejections of claims 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-16, 22, 24-25, 27, 29, and 32-35, nor specifically with respect to the previously cited prior art references: Bareket, Arnoldussen, Sacks, Woodley, and Bor.
Therefore, claims 3, 5-6, 8, 10, 13-16, 22, 24-25, 27, 29, and 32-35 remain rejected as described in detail below.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 7, 9, 11-12, 17, 20-21, 23, 26, 28, 30-31, and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak et al. (US 2017/0128260 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Chernyak in view of Goldshleger et al. (US 2013/0158530 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Goldshleger .
Regarding claim 1, Chernyak disclose a system (calibration system 10), comprising:
a radiation source (laser 12), configured to emit beams of radiation ([0035] “The laser 12 typically directs an unshaped laser beam 24”, [0036]);
one or more beam-directing elements (laser beam delivery system 14), configured to direct the beams (Figure 3, [0035] “the delivery system optics 14 which in turn directs a shaped and positioned laser beam 26 towards the mirror 14 having a reflecting surface that directs the laser beam 26 onto the calibration surface 18”);
a card (calibration surface 18) that includes an iris-shaped marking that simulates a human iris with respect to shape (view Figures 1 and 4-6) configured to undergo a permanent change in appearance at sites on the card on which the beams impinge ([0035] “The laser 12 typically directs an unshaped laser beam 24 through the delivery system optics 14 which in turn directs a shaped and positioned laser beam 26 towards the mirror 14 having a reflecting surface that directs the laser beam 26 onto the calibration surface 18 so as to leave a mark 28 on the calibration surface 18.”);
a camera (microscope camera 20), configured to acquire at least a first image and a second image of the card ([0035] “The mark 28 on the calibration surface 18, which is positioned along the imaging optical path 32 coaxial with the laser optical path 26, is then imaged by the microscope camera 20.”); and
a controller (PC workstation 22), configured to:
process the first image, and in response to processing the first image, control the beam-directing elements so as to direct the beams at one or more target points in a field of view (FOV) of the camera ([0035] “A PC workstation 22 determines a calibration of the laser beam delivery system 14 by comparing the image of the mark 28 on the calibration surface 18 to the image of the known object 30.”, [0041] “Typically, the pulsed laser beam 26 is oriented towards the laser focus plane and the camera 20 is orientated towards the treatment plane, which is a few millimeters below the laser focus plane. FIG. 4A illustrates a 1 mm image of a mark 40 and FIG. 4B illustrates a 5 mm image of a mark 42. Both images of the marks 40, 42 were created from directing the laser beam at the laser focus plane so as to create a crisp duodecahedral pattern on the calibration surface 18. The operator then moves the calibration surface 18 to a treatment plane via the calibration arm 34 or block (not shown) so that a sharp image of the marks 40, 42 may be obtained for calibration purposes”), thereby causing the appearance of the card to change at one or more irradiated locations on the card ([0035], [0041], [0044]).
Chernyak fails to explicitly disclose a camera, configured to acquire at least a first image and a second image of the card; and after directing the beams at the one or more target points, process the second image to overlay a single continuous target-marker marking a path along which the one or more target points lie and that surrounds the iris-shaped marking on the card, the second image being acquired after directing the beams at the one or more target points, and direct presentation of the second image of the card that shows the irradiated locations and the overlaid single continuous target-marker.
However, Goldshleger teaches a cataract surgical system including a laser source further comprising a camera (SD-OCT imaging system 200), configured to acquire at least a first image and a second image of the card ([0073] “the SD-OCT imaging system 200 can take a reference image before the first set of surgical laser pulses were generated and a feedback image after the first set of laser pulses generated the first photo-disrupted region 306”, [0056] “the SD-OCT imaging system 200 can offer further qualitative improvements. They can provide not only a few updated images during the cataract surgery, but an essentially live image of the progress of the procedure”, [0052], [0076]); and after directing the beams at the one or more target points, process the second image to overlay a single continuous target-marker marking a path along which the one or more target points lie and that surrounds the iris-shaped marking on the card (view Figure 5A), the second image being acquired after directing the beams at the one or more target points, and direct presentation of the second image of the card that shows the irradiated locations and the overlaid single continuous target-marker ([0076]-[0078] “The cataract surgical system 100 may apply the surgical laser beam 304 according to the target scan pattern 302, creating the first photo-disrupted region 306. However, the subsequent imaging of the first photo-disrupted region 306 with the imaging laser beam 308 may reveal that the first photo-disrupted region 306 may have been formed misplaced by a deviation 310 from its intended target scan pattern 302… the SD-OCT imaging system 200 can display the feedback image of the target scan pattern 302 and the image of the first photo-disrupted region 306 without an analysis. From this feedback image the surgeon can visually determine the deviation 310 and enter a compensating modification input to cause the laser controller 130 to modified scan pattern 312. In other embodiments, the SD-OCT imaging system 200 can display calibration marks to assist the surgeon's analysis….”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak to incorporate the teachings of Goldshleger to have a camera, configured to acquire at least a first image and a second image of the card; and after directing the beams at the one or more target points, process the second image to overlay a single continuous target-marker marking a path along which the one or more target points lie and that surrounds the iris-shaped marking on the card, the second image being acquired after directing the beams at the one or more target points, and direct presentation of the second image of the card that shows the irradiated locations and the overlaid single continuous target-marker, as these prior art references are directed to laser eye surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this enable the modification of the surgical procedure in real time for qualitative improvement of the efficacy and safety of modern surgery, as recognized by Goldshleger ([0013]).
Regarding claim 20, Chernyak disclose a method ([0003] “methods and systems for calibrating laser beam delivery systems, particularly ophthalmological surgery systems”), comprising:
coupling a card (calibration surface 18), which is configured to undergo a permanent change in appearance at sites on the card on which the beams of radiation impinge ([0035] “The laser 12 typically directs an unshaped laser beam 24 through the delivery system optics 14 which in turn directs a shaped and positioned laser beam 26 towards the mirror 14 having a reflecting surface that directs the laser beam 26 onto the calibration surface 18 so as to leave a mark 28 on the calibration surface 18.”); to a jig (view Figure 1: calibration arm 34, [0047] “The calibration arm 34 supporting the calibration surface 18 may comprise a luminescent plate.”); and
by inputting a command to a controller, initiating a testing procedure ([0033] “The calibration methods and systems of the present invention may be utilized upon replacement of any laser delivery system component, e.g., internal mechanical or optical components such as the iris, major optical re-alignment of the system, or problems with error generation.”, Figure 9A-9B) during which the controller:
processes a first image of the card acquired by a camera while the card is coupled to the jig ([0034] “A PC workstation 22 determines a calibration of the laser beam delivery system 14 by comparing the image of the mark 28 on the calibration surface 18 to the image of the known object 30.”), and
in response to processing the images, controls one or more beam-directing elements so as to direct the beams at one or more target points in a field of view (FOV) of the camera ([0035] “A PC workstation 22 determines a calibration of the laser beam delivery system 14 by comparing the image of the mark 28 on the calibration surface 18 to the image of the known object 30.” [0041] “Typically, the pulsed laser beam 26 is oriented towards the laser focus plane and the camera 20 is orientated towards the treatment plane, which is a few millimeters below the laser focus plane. FIG. 4A illustrates a 1 mm image of a mark 40 and FIG. 4B illustrates a 5 mm image of a mark 42. Both images of the marks 40, 42 were created from directing the laser beam at the laser focus plane so as to create a crisp duodecahedral pattern on the calibration surface 18. The operator then moves the calibration surface 18 to a treatment plane via the calibration arm 34 or block (not shown) so that a sharp image of the marks 40, 42 may be obtained for calibration purposes”), thereby causing the appearance of the card to change at one or more irradiated locations on the card ([0035], [0041], [0044]).
Chernyak fails to explicitly disclose after directing the beams at the one or more target points, process a second image of the card acquired by the camera while the card is coupled to jig, the processing including overlay a single continuous target-marker marking a path along which the one or more target points lie, the second image being acquired after directing the beams at the one or more target points, and direct presentation of the second image of the card that shows the irradiated locations and the overlaid single continuous target-marker.
However, Goldshleger teaches a cataract surgical system including a laser source further comprising after directing the beams at the one or more target points, process a second image of the card acquired by the camera while the card is coupled to the jig ([0073] “the SD-OCT imaging system 200 can take a reference image before the first set of surgical laser pulses were generated and a feedback image after the first set of laser pulses generated the first photo-disrupted region 306”, [0056] “the SD-OCT imaging system 200 can offer further qualitative improvements. They can provide not only a few updated images during the cataract surgery, but an essentially live image of the progress of the procedure”, [0052], [0076]), the processing including overlay a single continuous target-marker marking a path along which the one or more target points lie and that surrounds the iris-shaped marking on the card (view Figure 5A), the second image being acquired after directing the beams at the one or more target points, and direct presentation of the second image of the card that shows the irradiated locations and the overlaid single continuous target-marker ([0076]-[0078] “The cataract surgical system 100 may apply the surgical laser beam 304 according to the target scan pattern 302, creating the first photo-disrupted region 306. However, the subsequent imaging of the first photo-disrupted region 306 with the imaging laser beam 308 may reveal that the first photo-disrupted region 306 may have been formed misplaced by a deviation 310 from its intended target scan pattern 302… the SD-OCT imaging system 200 can display the feedback image of the target scan pattern 302 and the image of the first photo-disrupted region 306 without an analysis. From this feedback image the surgeon can visually determine the deviation 310 and enter a compensating modification input to cause the laser controller 130 to modified scan pattern 312. In other embodiments, the SD-OCT imaging system 200 can display calibration marks to assist the surgeon's analysis….”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak to incorporate the teachings of Goldshleger to have after directing the beams at the one or more target points, process a second image of the card acquired by the camera while the card is coupled to jig, the processing including overlay a single continuous target-marker marking a path along which the one or more target points lie, the second image being acquired after directing the beams at the one or more target points, and direct presentation of the second image of the card that shows the irradiated locations and the overlaid single continuous target-marker, as these prior art references are directed to laser eye surgical systems. One would be motivated to do this enable the modification of the surgical procedure in real time for qualitative improvement of the efficacy and safety of modern surgery, as recognized by Goldshleger ([0013]).
Regarding claims 2 and 21, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 20 (as shown above). Chernyak further discloses wherein the card comprises a polymer ([0041] “The calibration surface 18 preferably comprises silkscreen or luminescent material, wherein the marks 40, 42 comprise a permanent change in color or a luminescent glow. For example, the luminescent material may comprise a piece of glass, crystal, or polymer that is optically activated.”).
Regarding claim 4 and 23, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 20 (as shown above). Chernyak further discloses wherein the change in appearance includes a change in color ([0041] “The calibration surface 18 preferably comprises silkscreen or luminescent material, wherein the marks 40, 42 comprise a permanent change in color…”).
Regarding claims 7 and 26, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 20 (as shown above). Chernyak further discloses wherein the card is configured to undergo the change in appearance by virtue of the beams forming respective holes at the sites ([0015] “For example, use of polymethylmethacrylate material may result in the mark on the calibration surface to comprise an ablation.” [0020] “The mark on the calibration surface comprises an ablation, a permanent change in color, or a luminescent glow and has an iris setting in a range from about 0.65 mm to about 6.7 mm. “, [0044] “Each mark or ablation is produced by firing 100 pulses at 20 Hz with energy between 180-220 mJ from the laser 12 onto the calibration surface 18.”, Examiner interprets ablation to be a hole, as ablation is defined as “a loss of a part”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ablation)
Regarding claims 9 and 28, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 20 (as shown above). Chernyak further discloses the system further comprising a jig (a hinged support arm or mechanism 34) configured to move the card with respect to the camera ([0035] “The known object 30, as illustrated in FIG. 2, is positioned along an imaging optical path 32 via a hinged support arm or mechanism 34 that allows movement of the known object 30 and calibration surface 18 in at least one of a laser focus plane or the treatment plane.”, [0041] “The operator then moves the calibration surface 18 to a treatment plane via the calibration arm 34 or block (not shown) so that a sharp image of the marks 40, 42 may be obtained for calibration purposes.”).
Regarding claims 11 and 30, Chernyak discloses the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 20 (as shown above), wherein the card comprises one or more markings ([0035] “a mark 28 on the calibration surface 18”, [0041] “The calibration surface 18 preferably comprises silkscreen or luminescent material, wherein the marks 40, 42 comprise a permanent change in color or a luminescent glow.”, Figure 4A-6B), and wherein, for each of the images, the controller is configured to: identify at least one of the markings in the image, and control the beam-directing elements in response to identifying the at least one of the markings ([0035] “The mark 28 on the calibration surface 18, which is positioned along the imaging optical path 32 coaxial with the laser optical path 26, is then imaged by the microscope camera 20. A PC workstation 22 determines a calibration of the laser beam delivery system 14 by comparing the image of the mark 28 on the calibration surface 18 to the image of the known object 30.”).
Regarding claims 12 and 31, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 11 and the method according to claim 30 (as shown above). Chernyak further discloses wherein for the first image, the controller is configured to control the beam-directing elements so as to direct a respective one of the beams at one of the identified markings ([0035] “The mark 28 on the calibration surface 18, which is positioned along the imaging optical path 32 coaxial with the laser optical path 26, is then imaged by the microscope camera 20. A PC workstation 22 determines a calibration of the laser beam delivery system 14 by comparing the image of the mark 28 on the calibration surface 18 to the image of the known object 30.”, [0016]-[0017] “The shape of the laser beam and a center position of the laser beam may be determined from the imaging comparison. Additionally, a drift of the laser eye surgery system may be determined by monitoring a variance in center positions for each scanned and imaged laser pulse. Still further, a laser beam deflection may be determined. In some embodiments, an optical element may be rotated along a laser delivery path for smoothing laser beam”).
Regarding claims 17 and 36, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 20 (as shown above). Chernyak fails to disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: prior to controlling the beam-directing elements, display the first image of the card with one or more overlaid target-markers, receive, from a user, an adjustment of respective positions of the overlaid target-markers, and define the target points in response to the adjusted positions.
However, Goldshleger teaches a cataract surgical system that includes a laser source wherein “the surgeon can plan the surgical procedure by placing marks on the displayed reference image to input characteristic points or end-points of the various cuts and regions to be photo-disrupted or photo-treated. An interactive interface of a laser controller can sense these marks and translate them into electronic control signals to guide the surgical laser beam to form the corresponding cuts.” ([0003]) and “The OCT image processor 201 can analyze the image of the first photo-disrupted region 306 and display a feedback for the system operator. For example, if the OCT image processor 201 senses a miscalibration, i.e. that the first photo-disrupted region 306 is formed at a distance from where the target scan pattern 302 would have required, it can send a miscalibration feedback signal to the surgeon, who can then decide to stop the procedure and recalibrate the system, or to enter a modified scan pattern that compensates the miscalibration distance.” ([0072]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak to incorporate the teachings of Goldshleger to have the controller is further configured to: prior to controlling the beam-directing elements, display the first image of the card with one or more overlaid target-markers, receive, from a user, an adjustment of respective positions of the overlaid target-markers, and define the target points in response to the adjusted positions, as these prior art references are directed to ophthalmic laser systems. One would be motivated to do this to fix discrepancies or prevent unintended patterns.
Claim(s) 3 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak in view of Goldshleger as applied to claim 1 and claim 20 above, and further in view of Bareket et al. (US 2017/0112663 A1, previously cited), hereinafter Bareket.
Regarding claim 3 and 22, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 20 (as shown above). Chernyak further discloses wherein “the calibration surface 18 preferably comprises…luminescent material…For example, the luminescent material may comprise a piece of glass” ([0041]), however, Chernyak and Goldshleger, alone or in combination, fails to explicitly teach wherein the card comprises transparent glass.
However, Bareket teaches laser eye surgery systems, and more particularly, to laser beam calibration and laser beam quality measurement in laser surgical systems for eye surgery ([0002]) wherein the card comprises transparent glass ([0024] “the target 50 may have lines 52 of a reflective material such as chrome, aluminum, white ink, etc. on a transparent substrate such as glass, or on a non-reflective opaque substrate.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak to incorporate the teachings of Bareket to have the card comprise transparent glass, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to calibrating laser beam calibration for eye surgery systems. One would be motivated to do to allow the laser to pass through.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak as applied to claim 4 and 23 above, and further in view of Arnoldussen (US 2007/0173792 A1), hereinafter Arnoldussen.
Regarding claims 5 and 24, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 4 and the method according to claim 23 (as shown above). Chernyak and Goldshleger, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the card comprises a photosensitive dye configured to undergo the change in color in response to the beams of radiation.
However, Arnoldussen teaches methods and systems for qualifying and calibrating a ophthalmological surgery laser beam delivery system([0004]) wherein the card (test surface 240) comprises a photosensitive dye configured to undergo the change in color in response to the beams of radiation ([0035] “Test surface 240 may be constructed on any of a variety of materials…Other types of test surface materials include photosensitive materials, photoreactive materials…In some embodiments, test surface 240 includes a photosensitive material, and marks 282 include a permanent change in color, such as a white spot on a black background or vice versa.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak and Goldshleger to incorporate the teachings of Arnoldussen to have the card comprising a photosensitive dye configured to undergo the change in color in response to the beams of radiation, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to calibrating ophthalmological surgery laser systems. One would be motivated to do this to be able to visualize and observe the mark.
Regarding claims 6 and 25, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 4 and the method according to claim 23 (as shown above). Chernyak and Goldshleger, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the card comprises a temperature-sensitive material configured to undergo the change in color in response to being heated by the beams of radiation.
However, Arnoldussen teaches methods and systems for qualifying and calibrating a ophthalmological surgery laser beam delivery system([0004] wherein the card (test surface 240) comprises a temperature-sensitive material configured to undergo the change in color in response to being heated by the beams of radiation ([0035] “Test surface 240 may be constructed on any of a variety of materials…Other types of test surface materials include photosensitive materials, photoreactive materials, photographic materials, Zap it paper, polymers that change color based on temperature, and polymethylmethacrylate materials. Individual marks 282 may include an ablation, a permanent change in color, a luminescent glow, and the like” ).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak and Goldshleger to incorporate the teachings of Arnoldussen to have the card comprising a temperature-sensitive material configured to undergo the change in color in response to being heated by the beams of radiation, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to calibrating ophthalmological surgery laser systems. One would be motivated to do this to be able to visualize and observe the mark.
Claim(s) 8, 10, 27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sacks et al. (WO 2020/183342 A1), hereinafter Sacks.
Regarding claims 8 and 27, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 20 (as shown above). Chernyak and Goldshleger, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the controller is further configured to move the camera with respect to the card.
However, Sacks teaches a system that includes a laser to irradiate a target site in an iris and a controller (Abstract) that relates to ophthalmological procedures (pg. 1, line 7) wherein the controller is further configured to move the camera with respect to the card (pg. 11, lines 24-30: “conduit 76 comprises a frustum-shaped or cylindrically-shaped transparent piece of material (e.g., glass), such that the radiation passes through the material…Typically, conduit 76 is not coupled to device 21, such that the distance between laser 48 and the eye may be adjusted without moving the conduit.” Examiner interprets the material comprised in the conduit to be equivalent to the card and the laser 48 and the camera 54 are both located in an optical unit and thus move together.)
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak and Goldshleger to incorporate the teachings of Sacks to have the controller further configured to move the camera with respect to the card, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to laser devices with applications on the eye. One would be motivated to do this as to better visualize the regions on the card for more efficient calibration.
Regarding claim 10, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 1 (as shown above). Chernyak and Goldshleger, alone or in combination, fails to teach the system further comprising: an optical unit; and an XYZ stage unit comprising a control mechanism, wherein the optical unit comprises the camera and is mounted onto the XYZ stage unit so as to be moveable by a user, using the control mechanism, between acquisitions of the images.
However, Sacks teaches system further comprising: an optical unit (Figure 1: optical unit 30); and an XYZ stage unit (Figure 1: XYZ stage unit 32) comprising a control mechanism (Figure 1: control mechanism 36), wherein the optical unit comprises the camera (pg. 8, line 29: “Optical unit 30 further comprises a camera 54”) and is mounted onto the XYZ stage unit so as to be moveable by a user, using the control mechanism(“Optical unit 30 is mounted onto an XYZ stage unit 32, which is controlled by a control mechanism 36, such as a joystick. Using control mechanism 36, the user of system 20 may position the optical unit along one or more of the optical unit’s three axes of movement prior to treating the eye.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak and Goldshleger to incorporate the teachings of Sacks to have an optical unit; and an XYZ stage unit comprising a control mechanism, wherein the optical unit comprises the camera and is mounted onto the XYZ stage unit so as to be moveable by a user, using the control mechanism, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to laser devices with applications on the eye. One would be motivated to do this to be able to control the positioning of the camera and laser.
Regarding claim 29, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the method according to claim 20 (as shown above). Chernyak and Goldshleger, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein an optical unit includes the camera and is mounted onto an XYZ stage unit including a control mechanism, and wherein the method further comprises, using the control mechanism, moving the optical unit.
However, Sacks teaches wherein an optical unit (Figure 1: optical unit 30) includes the camera (pg. 8, line 29: “Optical unit 30 further comprises a camera 54”) and is mounted onto the XYZ stage unit (pg. 10, line 14: ““Optical unit 30 is mounted onto an XYZ stage unit 32”) including a control mechanism (Figure 1: control mechanism 36); wherein the method further comprises, using the control mechanism, moving the optical unit (“Optical unit 30 is mounted onto an XYZ stage unit 32, which is controlled by a control mechanism 36, such as a joystick. Using control mechanism 36, the user of system 20 may position the optical unit along one or more of the optical unit’s three axes of movement prior to treating the eye.”).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak and Goldshleger to incorporate the teachings of Sacks to have an optical unit; and an XYZ stage unit comprising a control mechanism, wherein the optical unit comprises the camera and is mounted onto the XYZ stage unit so as to be moveable by a user, using the control mechanism, as these prior art references and the instant application are directed to laser devices with applications on the eye. One would be motivated to do this to be able to control the positioning of the camera and laser.
Claim(s) 13-15 and 32-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Woodley et al. (US Patent 12,178,752 B2), hereinafter Woodley.
Regarding claims 13 and 32, Chernyak and Goldshleger discloses the system according to claim 11 and the method according to claim 30 (as shown above). Chernyak further discloses “A PC workstation 22 determines a calibration of the laser beam delivery system 14 by comparing the image of the mark 28 on the calibration surface 18 to the image of the known object 30.” ([0035]), however, Chernyak and Goldshleger, alone or in combination, fails to teach wherein, for the first image, the controller is configured to: wherein, for each of the images, the controller is configured to: identify the iris-shaped marking in the first image, compute a respective one of the target points with reference to the iris-shaped marking, and control the beam-directing elements so as to direct a respective one of the beams at the computed one of the target points.
However, Woodley teaches a laser system calibrated with a tomography system wherein “the calibration apparatus 300 comprises an iris structure 310, the iris structure comprises components similar to an iris of an eye and can provide calibration with respect to a reference.” (Column 40, lines 41-44) and “The plurality of anterior locations comprises a first targeted location 712, a second targeted location 714, a third targeted location 716, and a fourth targeted location 718. The plurality of posterior targeted locations comprises a first targeted location 713, a second targeted location 715, a third targeted location 717, and a fourth targeted location 719. The plurality of anterior marks comprises a first anterior mark 722, a second anterior mark 724, a third anterior mark 726, and a fourth anterior 728. The plurality of posterior targeted locations and corresponding marks comprises a first posterior mark 723, a second posterior mark 725, a fourth posterior mark 727, and a fifth posterior mark 729.The plurality of targeted locations can be compared to the corresponding marks and the calibration adjusted based on the marks of the calibration apparatus as described herein.” (Column 41, lines 18-32), such that when “the location of the mark may be compared with the target location and the laser can be calibrated in response to the location of the mark and the targeted location of the mark. In situ calibration can be performed to correct for drift of an optical delivery system to deliver the laser beam to the object.” (Column 5, lines 51-56).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak and Goldshleger to incorporate the teachings of Woodley to have for each of the images, the controller is configured to: wherein, for the first image, the controller is configured to: wherein, for each of the images, the controller is configured to: identify the iris-shaped marking in the first image, compute a respective one of the target points with reference to the iris-shaped marking, and control the beam-directing elements so as to direct a respective one of the beams at the computed one of the target points, as these prior art references are directed to laser calibration devices. One would be motivated to do this to guide the surgical procedure.
Regarding claims 14 and 33, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger in view of Woodley teaches the system according to claim 13 and the method according to claim 32 (as shown above). Chernyak further teaches wherein a background of the card surrounding the iris-shaped marking has a background appearance, and wherein, at at least one location along a perimeter of the iris-shaped marking, a transition between the background appearance and an appearance of the iris-shaped marking occurs over at least 0.1 mm (view Figure 4-6, Examiner notes that “the mark on the calibration surface, comprises a permanent change in color, such as a white spot on a black background, or vice versa” ([0015]) and that in Figure 5A and 6A, it can be seen that the profilometer measured a reference measurement of 5.87 mm whereas the measurement from figure 5A is noted to be 5.77 mm, the difference being 0.1 mm, which Examiner is interpreting to the be the transition. Additionally, one skilled in the art would notice that this difference (i.e. transition) would have been greater than 0.1 mm when observing the mark in Figure 6A).
Regarding claims 15 and 34, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger in view of Woodley teaches the system according to claim 13 and the method according to claim 32 (as shown above). Chernyak further teaches wherein a background of the card surrounding the iris-shaped marking has a background appearance, and wherein, at at least one location along a perimeter of the iris-shaped marking, a transition between the background appearance and an appearance of the iris-shaped marking occurs over less than 0.1 mm (view Figure 4-6, Examiner notes that “the mark on the calibration surface, comprises a permanent change in color, such as a white spot on a black background, or vice versa” ([0015]) and that in Figure 5A and 6A, it can be seen that the profilometer measured a reference measurement of 5.87 mm whereas the measurement from figure 4A is noted to be 5.87 mm, the difference being 0.0 mm, which Examiner is interpreting to the be the transition.).
Claim(s) 16 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chernyak in view of Goldshleger as applied to claims 1 and 20 above, and further in view of Bor (US 2023/0157884 A1), hereinafter Bor.
Regarding claims 16 and 35, Chernyak in view of Goldshleger teaches the system according to claim 1 and the method according to claim 20 (as shown above).
Chernyak and Goldshleger, alone or in combination, fail to teach wherein the controller is further configured to: identify the irradiated locations in the second image of the card, in response to identifying the irradiated locations, compute a distance between one of the irradiated locations and one of the target points at which the beam that impinged on irradiated location was directed , and communicate an output in response to the distance.
However, Bor teaches an ophthalmic laser surgical system for imaging and treating a target in an eye (Abstract) wherein “Steps 110 to 120 determine a calibration correction vector used to improve the aiming accuracy of the laser, and step 122 describes the treatment of the target with the calibration correction vector. At step 110, the target is located in three-dimensional (3D) space using the imaging system. The laser device directs the laser beam to the target at the intended location (x0, y0, z0) to yield a bubble at step 112. The imaging system generates a new image to measure the actual location (x, y, z) of the bubble at step 114. The computer determines the error vector that describes the error between intended location (x0, y0, z0) and actual location (x, y, z) at step 116. In certain embodiments, the computer may calculate the error vector as (x−x0, y−y0, z−z0). The computer determines the correction vector that compensates for the error at step 120. In certain embodiments, the computer may use the opposite of the error vector as the correction vector (x0−x, y0−y, z0−z). For example, if the actual location of the bubble is 120 um below the intended location, then the laser beam should be aimed 120 um above the target appearing on the imaging system. The laser device directs the laser beam to the target with improved accuracy at step 122” ([0046]-[0047], Figure 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Chernyak and Goldshleger to incorporate the teachings of Bor to have the controller is further configured to: identify the irradiated locations in another image of the card, in response to identifying the irradiated locations, compute a distance between one of the irradiated locations and the target point at which the beam that impinged on irradiated location was directed , and communicate an output in response to the distance, as these prior art references are directed to ophthalmic laser devices. One would be motivated to do this so the laser pulses of the beam are sent to the correct location of the target and achieve an intended surgical effect, as recognized by Bor ([0047]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI whose telephone number is (703)756-5921. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 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, Niketa Patel can be reached at 5712724156. 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.
/ATTIYA SAYYADA HUSSAINI/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights