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 .
Priority: the current application has the effective filing date to March 16, 2013 according to the priority chain on the record.
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.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,036,150 B2 0). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 10 (which incorporates claim 1) of the current application discloses an invention that is not patentably distinct from claim 1 in the patent, see overlapping subject matter in italicized below:
App. 18/772,804
U.S. Patent No. 12,036,150 B2
Claim 1. A system for ablating biological tissue to create a pattern of pores on the globe of an eye off the visual axis and excludes the cornea of the eye, that improves biomechanics, comprising:
a laser for generating a beam of laser radiation in a goniometric motion to create the pattern of pores;
a lens configured to focus the beam of laser radiation on a treatment axis that is not aligned with a patient's visual-axis and excludes the cornea of the eye;
a controller within a housing and in communication with the laser; and
an automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring and avoidance system.
Claim 10. The system of claim 1 further comprises a mount assembly for the laser, wherein the mount assembly is movable along an arc and rotatable in an annular pattern.
Claim 1. A system for ablating biological tissue to create a pattern of pores on the globe of an eye off the visual axis and excludes the cornea of the eye, that improves biomechanics, comprising:
a laser for generating a beam of laser radiation in a goniometric motion to create the pattern of pores;
a lens configured to focus the beam of laser radiation on a treatment axis that is not aligned with a patient's visual-axis and excludes the cornea of the eye;
a controller within a housing and in communication with the laser;
an automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring and avoidance system; and
a mount assembly for the laser, wherein the mount assembly is movable along an arc with an offset center of curvature and rotatable in an annular pattern.
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 is: "an automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring and avoidance system" in claim 1.
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.
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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 18 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kurtz US 2010/0324543 (hereinafter “Kurtz”).
Regarding claim 18, Kurt discloses a method for ablating biological tissue (Abstract and Figs. 3-4) to create a pattern of pores in a treatment area on the globe of an eye off the visual axis and excludes the cornea of the eye (see [0010] treatment sites), that improves biomechanics, comprising:
providing a first fixation target ([0190-0191] laser coordinates) that is along an axis distinct from the axis at the center of the eye and excludes the cornea of the eye (see [0010] treatment sites include Sclera, limbal region, ocular angle portion or iris root; which are off the visual axis and excludes cornea);
locating coordinates of a first pore (Fig.4: 420-1) of the pattern;
initiating tracking movement of the eye (Imaging sub-system 2230 which is an OCT system which would allow for the subsurface anatomy imaging see [0163-0165, 0167; 0172-173] which teach that the OCT imaging can be used to as feedback signal to control the laser. The captured imaging data is then used by the laser control module to determine the desired target tissue position and focuses the laser at those locations [0206]. The act of detecting and directing the laser to the desired target tissue also is avoiding the tissue that is not the desired target tissue.);
generating a beam (Fig.5a: laser beam 512) of laser radiation in a goniometric motion to ablate the first pore while tracking movement of the eye (Fig. 5a: laser 510; Figs. 5b-5c shows that ablation/capsulotomy bubbles 550 that form a complete circle around the eye indicated the system is capable of performing arc tracing which is the equivalent of the goniometric motion [0080]);
locating coordinates of a second pore (Fig.4:420-2) of the pattern;
generating a beam (Fig.5a: laser beam 512) of laser radiation to ablate the second pore while tracking movement of the eye (Fig. 5a: laser 510 and Fig. 5B capsulotomy bubbles 550; also see [0078-0080]);
repeating the locating, generating and ablating until the pattern of pores is complete (Figs. 5b-5c shows that ablation/capsulotomy bubbles 550 that form a complete circle around the eye; see [0078-0080]).
Regarding claim 22, Kurtz discloses the method of claim 18 further comprises receiving tissue characteristics within a tissue, including thickness, topography, and focus to identify biological features, and both gauging and ceasing the treatment intraoperatively upon identification of specific biological features based on the tissue characteristics. ([0163-0165, 0167; 0172-173]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 5-9, 11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor et al. US 2013/0211390 A1 (hereinafter “Bor”) in view of Jones et al. US 2008/0065055 (hereinafter “Jones”).
Regarding claim 1, Bor discloses a system for ablating biological tissue to create a pattern of pores on the globe of an eye off the visual axis and excludes the cornea of the eye, that improves biomechanics (Abstract: systems and method for photo-altering a region of a material, in an eye, with pulsed laser beam), comprising:
a laser (laser 14) for generating a beam of laser radiation (pulsed laser beam 18, [0030, 0034]) in a goniometric motion (scan and photo disruption patterns described in [0041]) to create the pattern of pores ([0045] “the compound scan patterns in FIGS. 2-8 may form an accumulation of gas bubbles or an OBL 150 in the bed of the corneal flap”; see [0007, 0027]);
a lens (optics 28) configured to focus the beam of laser radiation on a treatment axis ([0030] “…energy control unit 16 to direct a focal point 30 of the pulsed laser beam along a scan pattern on or in the material 12”. Also see [0033] “…the focusing optics 28 direct the pulsed laser beam 18 toward an eye…”);
a controller (controller 22) within a housing (controller stored in a housing is inherent feature, otherwise processor would be exposed) and in communication with the laser ([0030]);
an automated subsurface anatomy imaging (scanner 20), tracking, measuring and avoidance system ([0031] feedback control mechanism); and
a mount assembly (scanning mirrors driven by galvanometers) for the laser, wherein the mount assembly is movable along an arc with an offset center of curvature and rotatable in an annular pattern ([0035] XYZ three-dimensional scanning pattern movement, the scanning pattern can be a circular scan pattern, a progressive oval scan pattern, a spiral scan pattern, etc. according to [0041]. Also see [0042-0043] which describe radially outward spiral 42 and a progressive oval scan pattern 63, both of these scanning patterns are interpreted to meet “arc with an offset center of curvature and rotatable in an annular pattern” in the claim).
Bor does not explicitly disclose wherein the beam of laser radiation on a treatment ais that is not aligned with a patient's visual-axis and excludes the cornea of the eye. Jones, a prior art reference in analogous field, teaches a laser ablation device ([0057; 0059]) that creates a pattern of pores on the globe of an eye off the visual axis and excludes the cornea of the eye, that improves biomechanics (Fig 1-4 show various patterns of pores in the sclera of the eye which [0009] teaches can increase the accommodation of the eye which is an indication of a change in biomechanical property. Jones [0097] which teaches areas in sclera with pores can have increased elasticity. Note: sclera and limbus regions are peripheral to the pupil therefore any imaging or treatment of these regions would be off the visual axis). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Bor in view of Jones to include ablating pores in the sclera as is disclosed by Jones to laser system taught by Kurtz, the motivation for doing so is to improve eye accommodation (Jones [0009]).
Regarding claim 2, Bor further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring and avoidance system comprises a scanning system (scanner 20) configured to monitor and track eye movement for application of the beam of laser during a treatment. (Bor: [0030] “…the system 10 further includes a beam splitter 26 and a detector 24 coupled to the controller 22 for a feedback control mechanism of the pulsed laser beam 18.”)
Regarding claim 3, Bor further discloses the system of claim 2, wherein the automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring and avoidance system further comprises one or more biofeedback sensors. (Bor: detector 24; see [0030])
Regarding claim 5, Bor further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the beam of laser traces an arc with an offset center of curvature that is at the center of the eye. (Bor: [0041] “… first portion 46 of the traveling circular scan pattern 43 overlaps the spiral scan pattern 42, and a second portion 44 of the traveling circular scan pattern 43 occupies a central region of the first compound scan pattern 40 (e.g., a substantially circular central area).”)
Regarding claim 6, Bor further discloses the system of claim 5, wherein the beam of laser starts the tracing along an axis through the center of the eye. ([0035] “…achieved by moving the focusing objective, or one or more lenses within the focusing objective, along the optical axis”)
Regarding claim 7, Bor further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the beam of laser is along an axis distinct from an axis through the center of the eye. (Bor: [0041, 0046] spiral scan is an axis distinct from an axis through the center of the eye as claimed)
Regarding claim 8, Bor further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the beam of laser is along an axis through the center of the eye or along an axis distinct from the axis through the center of the eye. (see rejections to claims 6 and 7 above)
Regarding claim 9, Bor further discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the system is configured to maintain perpendicularity to the surface of a treatment area on the globe of the eye off the visual axis and excluding the cornea. (Bor: [0035] “The focal point of the pulsed laser beam 18 may thus be scanned in two dimensions (e.g., the x-axis and the y-axis) within the focal plane of the system 10. Scanning along the third dimension, i.e., moving the focal plane along an optical axis (e.g., the z-axis), may be achieved by moving the focusing objective…”)
Regarding claim 14, Bor modified discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the pattern of pores is generated by a golden spiral algorithm, the pattern having at least one of clockwise direction, counterclockwise direction, and a combination thereof. (Bor: [0041] spiral scan pattern 42. The Specification does not express criticality to the golden spiral algorithm, the system is capable of producing the pattern, and Bor teaches a variety of different pattern can be used, the particular shape/pattern golden spiral for the treatment would a matter of choice based on the desired treatment outcomes which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious, see MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B))
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor and Jones as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Degani US 2012/0116372 (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Bor modified discloses the system of claim 1 comprising a laser system for photoaltering an eye comprising a laser (laser 14); but Bor and Jones do not teach a second laser for generating a beam of low power laser radiation as a spotting beam to aid visualization of a focus spot location on the tissue.
Degani, a prior art reference in the analogous art of ophthalmic laser ablation system teach a second laser for generating a beam of low power laser radiation as a spotting beam to aid visualization of a focus spot location on the tissue ([0211-0212] teaches a visible aiming beam to indicated ablation area. [0222] indicates that the aiming beam can be used to determine the correct focal distance, the equivalent of the focus spot). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention to modify Bor and Jones in view of Dehani, to include the aiming beam as is disclosed by Degani to the laser system, the motivation is to visualize the target area that will be treated by the ablation laser (Degani [0211]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor and Jones as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gertner et al. US 2009/0161827 A1 (hereinafter “Gertner”).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Bor and Jones discloses the system of claim 1, but neither Bor nor Jones further comprises a mount assembly for the laser, wherein the mount assembly is movable along an arc and rotatable in an annular pattern, and wherein the mount assembly move in a plurality of angles. However Gertner, a prior art reference in analogous art, teaches a method and system for radiotherapy treatment of the eye, teaches “[a] focus adjustment for the laser, and line rotation and displacement adjustments to align the laser line with the linear CCD array may be provided with commercially available tip/tilt mounts, rotary mounts, and slidemounts.” (Note: These commercially available mounts are taken to encompass “mount assembly is movable along an arc and rotatable in an annular pattern, and wherein the mount assembly move in a plurality of angles” as disclosed in this claim.) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to further modify Bor in view of Gertner to play the laser beam on the noted commercially available rotating and/or sliding mounts in view of Gertner, the motivation for doing so is to shift and move the laser beam to focus.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor and Jones as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hipsley US 2014/0163597 A1.
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Bor modified discloses a system for ablating biological tissue to create a pattern of pores that is spiral or raster such as shown in Bor: Figs.10-11; but Bor and Jones do not disclose wherein the system is configured to ablate biological tissue in more than one treatment zones on the globe of the eye off the visual axis and excluding the cornea, and wherein the system is configured to provide a distinct fixation target for each treatment zone.
However Hipsley, a prior art reference in the analogous art of laser treatment to photodisrupt eye tissue; Hipsley discloses a laser treatment system that creates an annular treatment performations on the eye (Abstract and [0033]), wherein the system is configured to ablate biological tissue in more than one treatment zones on the globe of the eye off the visual axis and excluding the cornea (treatment zones shown in Figs.2-3, first second third and fourth sets 52, 54, 56, 58, see [0035]), and wherein the system is configured to provide a distinct fixation target for each treatment zone ([0035-0037] first second third and fourth sets 52, 54, 56, 58 are each a fixation target zone). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Bor and Jones in view of Hipsley to have distinct treatment zones; the motivation for doing so is because the specific treatment pattern having different treatment zones spaced apart from each other provide the advantage of altering the fundamental mechanisms so as to inhibit normal tissue healing, repair, or regeneration (see Hipsley, [0038-0040]).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor as and Jones applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kurtz (cited above).
Regarding claims 15 and 16, Bor modified discloses the system of claim 3, wherein the automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring and avoidance system (scanner 20) to provide feedback during photoablation (Bor: [0030]), but neither Bor nor Jones explicitly disclose wherein the system provides an automated real-time biofeedback loop for sensing and monitoring tissue characteristics within a tissue, including thickness, topography, and focus to identify biological features; and provides real-time position feedback to the controller and, upon identification of specific biological features based on tissue characteristics, the controller both gauges and ceases the treatment intraoperatively.
Kurtz, a prior art reference in the field of ophthalmic eye surgery systems and method, discloses a laser system in communication with a scanning system with automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring and avoidance system comprising one or more biofeedback sensors (Imaging sub-system 2230 which is an OCT system which would allow for the subsurface anatomy imaging see [0163-0165, 0167; 0172-173] which teach that the OCT imaging can be used to as feedback signal to control the laser.)
To claim 15, Kurtz teaches wherein the automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring and avoidance system provides an automated real-time biofeedback loop for sensing and monitoring tissue characteristics within a tissue, including thickness, topography, and focus to identify biological features (Kurtz [0163-0165, 0167; 0172-173]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Bor and Jones in view of Kurtz to replace the scanner with the real time OCT biofeedback system of Kurtz, the motivation for doing so is because biofeedback provides the added advantage to automatically control photoablation in real time (Kurtz: [0168]).
To claim 16, Kurtz teaches wherein the automated subsurface anatomy imaging, tracking, measuring and avoidance system provides real-time position feedback to the controller and, upon identification of specific biological features based on tissue characteristics, the controller both gauges and ceases the treatment intraoperatively (Kurtz teaches Images of structures including thickness and shape/topography within in the eye and ablation byproducts within the tissue can be used to control the treatment laser which are specific biological features [00151; 00158; 0168]. Inherently, controlling the laser beam would involve engaging or ceasing laser operation as the beam position is be being changed based on image feedback. see also [0150-0165].) It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Bor and Jones in view of Kurtz to replace the scanner with the real time OCT biofeedback system of Kurtz, the motivation for doing so is because biofeedback provides the added advantage to automatically control photoablation in real time (Kurtz: [0168]).
Regarding claim 17, Bor modified discloses the system of claim 1 for photo ablation of an eye, but neither Bor nor Jones disclose the system further comprises a fixator configured to fix the system relative to the eye. Kurtz, a prior art reference in the field of ophthalmic eye surgery systems and method, discloses a laser system that comprises a fixator configured to fix the system relative to the eye (Kurtz teaches patient interface 3300 which immobilizes the patients eye making it equivalent of a fixator see also [0170]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Bor and Jones to include the patient interface disclosed in Kurtz, the motivation for doing so is because using a patient interface is well known and common place for holding an eye in place during ophthalmic surgery.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurt and in view of Hipsley (previously cited above).
Regarding claims 19 and 20, Kurtz teaches the method of claim 18, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the treatment area is in a first quadrant of the globe of eye off the visual axis and excludes the cornea of the eye, and then the treatment further comprises repeating all the steps of claim 17 wherein the treatment area is in a second quadrant of the globe of eye off the visual axis and excludes the cornea of the eye.
However Hipsley, a prior art reference in the analogous art of laser treatment to photodisrupt eye tissue; Hipsley discloses a laser treatment system that creates an annular treatment performations on the eye (Abstract and [0033]), wherein the system is configured to ablate biological tissue in more than one treatment zones on the globe of the eye off the visual axis and excluding the cornea (treatment zones shown in Figs.2-3, first second third and fourth sets 52, 54, 56, 58, see [0035]). Hipsley further discloses wherein ablation treatment areas is focused at one quadrant at a time, when treatment is done, then treatment is moved to a second/another quadrant (see [0147, 0152]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Kurtz in view of Hipsley to treat one quadrant at a time; the motivation for doing so is to focus on treatment zones and avoid having to move back and forth between different quadrants in case the patient’s head shifts during treatment.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurt (previously cited above).
Regarding claim 21, Kurtz discloses the method of claim 18, but does not disclose wherein the pattern of pores is generated by a golden spiral algorithm, the pattern having at least one of clockwise direction, counterclockwise direction, and combination thereof. However, Kurtz teaches all the structural limitations of the system including the ability of the laser to be controlled in three dimensions and perform complete circumferential treatment of a biological tissue because the Specification has express no criticality to the golden spiral, the system is capable of producing the pattern, and the prior art teaches a variety of different pattern can be used, the particular shape/pattern golden spiral for the treatment would a matter of choice based on the desired treatment outcomes which one of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious (See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(B)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHIRLEY X JIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7374. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHIRLEY X JIAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
March 5, 2026