DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I corresponding to claims 1-6 and 37 in the reply filed on Sept. 1, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 64 and 87-100 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on Sept. 1, 2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2, 6, and 37 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, and 36 of copending Application No. 18/763,706 (hereinafter “ ‘706 ”) in view of Motwani (US 20180289545 A1, published Oct. 11, 2018, hereinafter referred to as “Motwani”).
Claims 1 and 37 of the copending application discloses all the limitations in instant claims 1 and 36 respectively, except instant claims 1 and 37 differs from application ‘706 in that is contains the structural components to complete the method steps.
Motwani teaches a corneal laser ablation system (“a corneal laser ablation system” ¶[0008]) comprising: an ablation laser (“laser system configured to emit pulsed laser light at one or more wavelengths and configured to control the parameters of laser emission such that the laser output is suitable for controlled ablation of an anterior corneal surface” ¶[0010]); a whole eye aberrometer and a corneal topography measuring device (“an instrument that combines a corneal topography measuring instrument and a wavefront aberrometer can be a highly suitable device to obtain data for planning a laser ablation in accordance with the principles set forth above. One example of a commercially available device that combines these measurement instruments is the Schwind Peramis from Schwind eye-tech-solutions GmbH” ¶[0108]); a processing system (“A commercially available treatment system comprising a corneal topography instrument, laser ablation profile generator, and ablation laser for topographic guided ablation treatment is the WaveLight Contoura system from Alcon. The Contoura system combines a WaveLight Topolyzer VARIO and an excimer laser system (e.g. WaveLight EX500 or Alegretto Wave Eye-Q) incorporating computational software for generating topological map measurements and converting these into laser ablation profiles for treatment” ¶[0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include a corneal laser ablation system with an ablation laser, a whole eye aberrometer, a corneal topography measuring device, and a processing system as taught by Motwani in claim 1 on copending application ‘706 in order to provide a means for performing the corneal laser ablation.
Below are the dependent claims and the claim they are double patenting with:
Instant claim 2 [Wingdings font/0xE0] ‘706 claim 2
Instant claim 6 [Wingdings font/0xE0] ‘706 claim 3
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: element 10. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and corneal topography measuring device” in line 14 should be changed to --and the corneal topography measuring device--. 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 1-6 and 37 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 1 recites the limitation "the parameters" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the parameters” will be interpreted at “one or more parameters”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the anterior corneal surface of the eye" in line 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the anterior corneal surface of the eye” will be interpreted as “an anterior corneal surface of an eye”.
Claims 2-6 are rejected for being dependent on claim 1.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the parameters" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the parameters” will be interpreted at “one or more parameters”.
Claim 37 recites the limitation "the dataset" in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the dataset” will be interpreted at “one or more parameters”.
The term “approximately equal” in claims 4 and 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, “approximately equal” will be interpreted as “equal”.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “corneal topography measuring device configure to” in claims 1 and 37.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For “corneal topography measuring device”, the specification discloses Placido ring corneal topography measuring device in ¶[00091] and any equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-6 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Motwani in view of Dai et al. (US 20080291395 A1, published Nov. 27, 2008, hereinafter referred to as Dai").
Regarding claim 1, Motwani teaches a corneal laser ablation system (“a corneal laser ablation system” ¶[0008]) comprising: an ablation laser configured to emit pulsed laser light at one or more wavelengths and configured to control the parameters of laser emission such that the laser output is suitable for controlled ablation of an anterior portion of a cornea (“laser system configured to emit pulsed laser light at one or more wavelengths and configured to control the parameters of laser emission such that the laser output is suitable for controlled ablation of an anterior corneal surface” ¶[0010]); a whole eye aberrometer configured to acquire measurements comprising one or more lower order whole eye optical aberration characteristics at least in part via retinal reflection measurements; a corneal topography measuring device configured to acquire measurements comprising one or more lower order elevation characteristics of the anterior corneal surface of the eye at least in part via tear film and/or anterior epithelium reflection measurements (“an instrument that combines a corneal topography measuring instrument and a wavefront aberrometer can be a highly suitable device to obtain data for planning a laser ablation in accordance with the principles set forth above. One example of a commercially available device that combines these measurement instruments is the Schwind Peramis from Schwind eye-tech-solutions GmbH” ¶[0108]); a processing system configured to: receive input of the measurements derived from the whole eye aberrometer and corneal topography measuring device (“A commercially available treatment system comprising a corneal topography instrument, laser ablation profile generator, and ablation laser for topographic guided ablation treatment is the WaveLight Contoura system from Alcon. The Contoura system combines a WaveLight Topolyzer VARIO and an excimer laser system (e.g. WaveLight EX500 or Alegretto Wave Eye-Q) incorporating computational software for generating topological map measurements and converting these into laser ablation profiles for treatment” ¶[0027]; the processing system is capable of receiving measurements from both); derive a first astigmatism characteristic representative of whole eye astigmatism based at least in part on the whole eye aberrometer measurements (“it may be optimal to collect manifest refraction data, wavefront aberrometer data, and axial eye length data in preparation for a topographic guided laser ablation procedure to be confident that the sphere correction to be used as part of the planning is accurate, rather than rely on a single source for that planning information. As noted above for Case number 6, preoperative wavefront aberration data may also be useful to determine whether a given patient is not a suitable candidate for the procedures described herein” ¶[0112]); derive a second astigmatism characteristic representative of anterior corneal surface astigmatism based at least in part on the corneal topography measuring device measurements (Fig. 5 “it has been found especially advantageous to correct HOAs and astigmatism with laser ablation profiles derived from corneal topology measurements” ¶[0105]; Fig. 7B has both corneal topology and aberrometer); determine a third astigmatism characteristic for the generation of a treatment map (“The first astigmatism characteristic derived from the waveform aberrometer data is representative of the whole eye lower order astigmatism, and the second astigmatism characteristic is derived from the corneal topography measurements of the anterior corneal surface and correspondingly measured lower order astigmatism. The waveform measured astigmatism and the Contura corneal surface astigmatism are compared to determine a combined third astigmatism diagnosis for treatment (e.g. lenticular astigmatism) in ¶[0079]-[0082]; additional diagnosed astigmatism characteristics are in ¶[0070]-[0078]; the treatment map is generated after data the topography of the anterior surface of the cornea is defined, this information may be used to design a laser ablation profile for vision correction/treatment. A commercially available treatment system comprising a corneal topography instrument, laser ablation profile generator, and ablation laser for topographic guided ablation treatment is the Wave Light Contoura system from Alcon. The Contoura system combines a WaveLight Topolyzer VARIO and an excimer laser system (e.g. WaveLight EX500 or Alegretto Wave Eye-Q) incorporating computational software for generating topological map measurements and converting these into laser ablation profiles for treatment. With the Contoura system, the actual surface contour of the cornea is measured, and this data is used to derive a best fit model of the anterior surface shape of the cornea. This system provides low order refraction measurements based on the model including astigmatism, as well as a detailed map of the anterior surface of the cornea that includes measurements showing where the corneal topology deviates from the best fit model. The areas of deviation of the corneal surface from the best fit model may be referred to as high order aberrations of the cornea surface (which may, along with the low order characteristics of the model, be characterized by the coefficients of Zernike polynomials if desired). The corneal contour data may be derived by measurement and analysis of the cornea with the WaveLight Topolyzer VARIO cornea mapping device and Wavelight Refractive Suite of software. In some implementations, topographic guided ablation may perform two different "layers" of correction. The first layer is the HOA (higher order aberration) removal layer to remove the natural biological aberrations found in the cornea. The second, the refractive correction layer, treats sphere and astigmatism ¶[0027]), wherein the third astigmatism characteristic is determined using either (1) one or both of the first astigmatism characteristic and the second astigmatism characteristic (The first astigmatism characteristic derived from the waveform aberrometer data is representative of the whole eye lower order astigmatism, and the second astigmatism characteristic is derived from the corneal topography measurements of the anterior corneal surface and correspondingly measured lower order astigmatism. The waveform measured astigmatism and Contura corneal surface astigmatism are compared to determine a combined third astigmatism diagnosis for treatment (e.g. lenticular astigmatism) ¶[0079]-[0082]; additional diagnosed astigmatism characteristics are in ¶[0070]-[0078]) or (2) a derivative of one or both of the first astigmatism characteristic and the second astigmatism characteristic (The axial eye length measuring instrument 4 7 and the corneal topology measuring instrument 46 of FIG 7 A can be combined together into a single instrument that can perform the required measurements in a single patient procedure. The Lenstar LS 900 device mentioned above includes axial eye length measuring capabilities and can be configured to perform Placido ring corneal topography mapping as well, thus combining instruments 46 and 47 of FIG 7 A into one package; [0107]; see also the system of FIG. 9, an optical coherence tomography instrument 62 is used to obtain epithelial thickness measurements. These are subtracted from the topographical data obtained by the corneal topology measuring instrument 46 to improve the accuracy of the HOA correction performed by the laser system 12. A wavefront aberrometer or an axial eye length measuring instrument may be used to provide the defocus/sphere correction for generating the laser ablation profile performed by the laser system 12; ¶[0110]-[0112]); and generate the treatment map using at least in part the third astigmatism characteristic (information may be used to design a laser ablation profile for vision correction. A commercially available treatment system comprising a corneal topography instrument, laser ablation profile generator, and ablation laser for topographic guided ablation treatment is the Wave Light Contoura system from Alcon. The Contoura system combines a WaveLight Topolyzer VARIO and an excimer laser system (e.g. WaveLight EX500 or Alegretto Wave Eye-Q) incorporating computational software for generating topological map measurements and converting these into laser ablation profiles for treatment; ¶[0027]).
Motwani does not disclose compare the first astigmatism characteristic with the second astigmatism characteristic to generate an estimate of an amount of difference between lower order whole eye astigmatism and lower order anterior corneal surface astigmatism.
Dai’s invention relates to systems, devices, and methods for compensating voluntary and other accommodation of patients during ocular diagnostic and treatment procedures. In particular, embodiments provide techniques for improving the accuracy of ocular aberration measurements and the development of vision correction treatments by evaluating accommodation in a patient (¶[0002]). In some embodiments, an aberrometer device can be used to measure whole eye spherical aberration (SA), and a topography device can be used to obtain a topography or spherical aberration of a cornea. Based on the whole eye SA and the cornea SA, the SA of the lens can be calculated. The change or difference in SA due to a natural lens or an accommodating IOL can be determined. Hence, accommodation can be measured. A wavefront may change as it propagates from one plane to another. Thus, topographic aberrations of the cornea can be represented at the exit pupil plane, and aberrations of the entire eye can be represented at the exit pupil plane. When deriving a difference between an ocular aberration and a corneal aberration, the difference may be represented at the exit pupil plane. When using the difference to determine an aberration of a natural lens or an accommodating IOL, the representation of the aberration may be translated, for example, to an IOL plane (¶[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to compare the first astigmatism characteristic with the second astigmatism characteristic to generate an estimate of an amount of difference between lower order whole eye astigmatism and lower order anterior corneal surface astigmatism as taught by Dai in the system of Motwani in order to derive lenticular contribution (¶[0094]).
Regarding claim 2, Motwani teaches wherein the processing system is configured to compare the estimate to a threshold (Claims 3-5 and 16-19: the disclosed thresholds where the compared astigmatism axes are at least 5 degrees different and/or where magnitude of compared astigmatism powers is at least 0.25 diopters different).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Motwani teaches wherein the processing system comprises a user interface for a user of the system to set the threshold (Aberration correction was visualized on the treatment planning page of a Contoura topographic guided ablation system by zeroing out the refraction and displaying Contoura correction of the aberration. The change of shape to the central cornea was determined using this method, and comparison against the manifest refraction astigmatism and axis was performed. The examination of a large number of eyes resulted in 6 categories where manifest astigmatism was different than measured corneal astigmatism. Those categories are listed below. All patients were analyzed using the Topolyzer Vario, and all patients had correction by one surgeon (MM) at one center using the Wavelight EX500 system with Contoura and the WaveNet server. During Contoura Planning, excellent topographic image capture with the Topolyzer Vario is desirable, generally at least 4 high quality images, and preferably as many as 8 for processing by Contoura. Mean Average Deviation (MAD) of the astigmatic axis of 1 degree was required in the scan group sent to Contoura for processing. The Q value was left unchanged; ¶[0040]-[0041]).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Motwani teaches wherein the third astigmatism characteristic is equal to or approximately equal to the second astigmatism characteristic when the estimate is less than the threshold and equal to the first astigmatism characteristic when the estimate is greater than the threshold (Claims 3-5 and 16-19: the disclosed thresholds where the compared astigmatism axes are at least 5 degrees different and/or where magnitude of compared astigmatism powers is at least 0.25 diopters different. If the threshold(s) are not reached then the astigmatism characteristics could be assumed to be similar or "approximately equal").
Regarding claim 37, Motwani teaches corneal laser ablation system (“a corneal laser ablation system” ¶[0008]) comprising: an ablation laser configured to emit pulsed laser light at one or more wavelengths and configured to control the parameters of laser emission such that the laser output is suitable for controlled ablation of an anterior portion of a cornea (“laser system configured to emit pulsed laser light at one or more wavelengths and configured to control the parameters of laser emission such that the laser output is suitable for controlled ablation of an anterior corneal surface” ¶[0010]); a whole eye aberrometer configured to acquire measurements that include one or more lower and higher order whole eye optical aberration characteristics at least in part via retinal reflection measurements; a corneal topography measuring device configured to acquire measurements that include one or more higher order and lower order elevation characteristics of the anterior corneal epithelium surface of the eye at least in part via tear film and/or anterior epithelium reflection measurements (“an instrument that combines a corneal topography measuring instrument and a wavefront aberrometer can be a highly suitable device to obtain data for planning a laser ablation in accordance with the principles set forth above. One example of a commercially available device that combines these measurement instruments is the Schwind Peramis from Schwind eye-tech-solutions GmbH” ¶[0108]); a processing system configured to: (“A commercially available treatment system comprising a corneal topography instrument, laser ablation profile generator, and ablation laser for topographic guided ablation treatment is the WaveLight Contoura system from Alcon. The Contoura system combines a WaveLight Topolyzer VARIO and an excimer laser system (e.g. WaveLight EX500 or Alegretto Wave Eye-Q) incorporating computational software for generating topological map measurements and converting these into laser ablation profiles for treatment” ¶[0027]); based at least in part on the comparing, perform one or more of (a) through (f): (a) select a subset of the measured corneal surface aberration dataset for a corresponding subset of lower order and/or higher order aberration treatment (“In some implementations, topographic guided ablation may perform two different "layers" of correction. The first layer is the HOA (higher order aberration) removal layer to remove the natural biological aberrations found in the cornea. The second, the refractive correction layer, treats sphere and astigmatism” ¶[0027]); (b) select a subset of the measured whole eye optical aberration dataset for a corresponding subset of lower order and/or higher order aberration treatment (“By using many points of light in the pattern, aberrations of second order and aberrations of higher than second order can be detected by the wavefront aberrometer, which allows for the characterization of the optical properties of the patient's eye in more detail than just sphere and cylinder corrections that are obtained with a phoropter. With both lower order and higher order characterizations of the optical properties of the eye, the laser system 42 generates an ablation pattern that modifies the corneal surface in a way that is designed to compensate for the aberrations detected in the entire optical system of the eye.” ¶[0007]); use one or more of the chosen options to define a treatment set of lower order and/or higher order aberrations for correction; and combine the treatment set of lower order and/or higher order aberrations for correction to generate the treatment map (information may be used to design a laser ablation profile for vision correction. A commercially available treatment system comprising a corneal topography instrument, laser ablation profile generator, and ablation laser for topographic guided ablation treatment is the Wave Light Contoura system from Alcon. The Contoura system combines a WaveLight Topolyzer VARIO and an excimer laser system (e.g. WaveLight EX500 or Alegretto Wave Eye-Q) incorporating computational software for generating topological map measurements and converting these into laser ablation profiles for treatment; ¶[0027]).
Motwani does not disclose compare the dataset of anterior corneal surface aberration data with the corresponding dataset of whole eye optical aberration data.
Dai’s invention relates to systems, devices, and methods for compensating voluntary and other accommodation of patients during ocular diagnostic and treatment procedures. In particular, embodiments provide techniques for improving the accuracy of ocular aberration measurements and the development of vision correction treatments by evaluating accommodation in a patient (¶[0002]). In some embodiments, an aberrometer device can be used to measure whole eye spherical aberration (SA), and a topography device can be used to obtain a topography or spherical aberration of a cornea. Based on the whole eye SA and the cornea SA, the SA of the lens can be calculated. The change or difference in SA due to a natural lens or an accommodating IOL can be determined. Hence, accommodation can be measured. A wavefront may change as it propagates from one plane to another. Thus, topographic aberrations of the cornea can be represented at the exit pupil plane, and aberrations of the entire eye can be represented at the exit pupil plane. When deriving a difference between an ocular aberration and a corneal aberration, the difference may be represented at the exit pupil plane. When using the difference to determine an aberration of a natural lens or an accommodating IOL, the representation of the aberration may be translated, for example, to an IOL plane (¶[0052]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to compare the first astigmatism characteristic with the second astigmatism characteristic to generate an estimate of an amount of difference between lower order whole eye astigmatism and lower order anterior corneal surface astigmatism as taught by Dai in the system of Motwani in order to derive lenticular contribution (¶[0094]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Emily N Cirulnick whose telephone number is (571)272-9734. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-5:30 and every other F 8-4:30ET.
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.
/E.N.C./ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
