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 Species II (claims 21–28, 30–38, and 40) in the reply filed on August 7th, 2026 is acknowledged. The application has pending claims 21–40 (withdrawn claims 29 and 39 are withdrawn from further consideration).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In paragraph [0034], “patent interface 20” should read “patient interface 20” consistent with the identification of element 20 elsewhere in the specification.
FIGS. 2A and 2B identify the real pupil diameter using the designation “PDactual” whereas paragraphs [0033] and [0034] use “PDreal”. The designations should be made consistent, or the specification should expressly explain their correspondence.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because reference numeral 63, used to identify the graph in paragraph [0043], does not appear in FIG. 5. Applicant is required to add reference numeral 63 to the corresponding graph in FIG. 5 or delete the unnecessary reference numeral from paragraph [0043]. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 21–28, 30–38, and 40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,097,149 B2. The claims at issue are identical, and/or they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim language in this Application
Application No. 18/805,881
Corresponding claim language in
U.S. Patent No. 12,097,149 B2
21a
An ophthalmic surgical system for adjusting a dimension of an eye, comprising:
19a
An ophthalmic surgical system for adjusting a dimension of an eye, comprising:
21b
a camera configured to generate a surgical image of the eye in contact with a patient interface, the eye having a cornea and an iris defining a pupil, the pupil having a real pupil diameter, the cornea distorted by the patient interface, the surgical image including the pupil with the real pupil diameter; and
19b
a camera configured to generate a surgical image of the eye in contact with a patient interface, the eye having a cornea and an iris defining a pupil, the pupil having a real pupil diameter, the cornea distorted by the patient interface, the surgical image including the pupil with the real pupil diameter;
21c
a computer configured to:
access the surgical image of the eye with the distorted cornea;
19c
a computer configured to:
access the surgical image of the eye with the distorted cornea;
21d
adjust the real pupil diameter of the surgical image using an eye model to yield a refracted pupil diameter that takes into account a curvature of the cornea; and
19d
adjust the real pupil diameter of the surgical image using an eye model to yield a refracted pupil diameter that takes into account the curvature of the cornea
21e
use the refracted pupil diameter to compensate for the distorted cornea when performing a surgical procedure on the eye.
19e
use the refracted pupil diameter to perform a surgical procedure on the eye to compensate for difference between the diagnostic pupil diameter of the diagnostic image and the real pupil diameter of the surgical image.
Regarding claim 21, parent claim 19 compensates for the image-diameter difference caused by the cornea being distorted by the patient interface, rather than retaining its natural curvature. That claimed surgical use satisfies the broader recitation of compensating for the distorted cornea. Claim 21 does not exclude use of a diagnostic image or the additional operations required by parent claim 19. Thus, the invention claimed in parent claim 19 falls within claim 21; the omitted limitations do not confer patentable distinctness. See also the explanation of the claimed compensation at column 6, lines 6–20.
22
The ophthalmic surgical system of Claim 21:
further comprising a laser device configured to direct a laser beam towards the eye; and
the computer further configured to use the refracted pupil diameter to perform the surgical procedure on the eye while compensating for the distorted cornea.
19f
a laser device configured to direct a laser beam towards the eye; and
[…]
use the refracted pupil diameter to perform a surgical procedure on the eye to compensate for difference between the diagnostic pupil diameter of the diagnostic image and the real pupil diameter of the surgical image.
Regarding claim 22, the rationale provided for claim 21 is incorporated herein. Parent claim 19 expressly includes the additional limitations reproduced above as part of the same surgical system. Accordingly, claim 22 is not patentably distinct from parent claim 19.
23
The ophthalmic surgical system of Claim 21, wherein adjusting the real pupil diameter of the surgical image using the eye model comprises:
accessing information describing one or more of the following of the eye: a distance between structures of the eye, a refractive power of a structure of the eye, a thickness of a structure of the eye, and a curvature of a structure of the eye; and
including the information in the eye model.
19g
adjusting the real pupil diameter of the surgical image using the eye model comprising: accessing information describing one or more of the following of the eye: a distance between structures of the eye, a refractive power of a structure of the eye, a thickness of a structure of the eye, and a curvature of a structure of the eye; and including the information in the eye model;
Regarding claim 23, the rationale provided for claim 21 is incorporated herein. Parent claim 19 expressly includes the additional limitations reproduced above as part of the same surgical system. Accordingly, claim 23 is not patentably distinct from parent claim 19.
24
The ophthalmic surgical system of Claim 21, wherein the eye model includes a representation of geometric optics and describes paths of light rays through the eye.
19h
adjust the real pupil diameter of the surgical image using an eye model to yield a refracted pupil diameter that takes into account the curvature of the cornea
Regarding claim 24, parent claim 19 recites an eye model that converts the real pupil diameter to a refracted pupil diameter while accounting for corneal curvature. Column 7, lines 31–46, explains that this eye model uses geometric optics to describe light-ray paths. This passage directly explains the model used to perform the function required by parent claim 19. Specifying that explained model does not define a patentably distinct invention; it identifies the disclosed optical implementation of the claimed real-to-refracted conversion, producing the same predicted pupil diameter.
25
The ophthalmic surgical system of Claim 21, wherein the eye model includes representation of a flattened cornea, a cornea with a curvature, or both.
19i
adjust the real pupil diameter of the surgical image using an eye model to yield a refracted pupil diameter that takes into account the curvature of the cornea
Regarding claim 25, the alternatives are disjunctive. The curved-cornea representation in Fig. 3A is the supporting implementation of the eye model in parent claim 19 that predicts the effect of natural corneal curvature on pupil diameter. Selecting that representation would have been obvious to carry out the expressly claimed curvature-dependent conversion. No additional representation of a flattened cornea is required to satisfy the “a cornea with a curvature” alternative. The disclosed representations in Figs. 3A–3B therefore do not establish a patentable distinction over the claimed eye-model system.
26
The ophthalmic surgical system of Claim 21, the computer further configured to:
adjust a dimension of the iris of the surgical image using the eye model; and
correct for torsion according to the adjusted iris dimension.
19j
adjust a dimension of the iris of the surgical image using the eye model and correct for torsion according to the adjusted iris dimension
Regarding claim 26, the rationale provided for claim 21 is incorporated herein. Parent claim 19 expressly includes the additional limitations reproduced above as part of the same surgical system. Accordingly, claim 26 is not patentably distinct from parent claim 19.
27
The ophthalmic surgical system of Claim 26, wherein adjusting the dimension of the iris of the surgical image comprises:
determining an imaging ratio of the real pupil diameter to the refracted pupil diameter; and
adjusting the dimension of the iris according to the imaging ratio and an anterior chamber depth.
19k
determining an imaging ratio of the real pupil diameter to the refracted pupil diameter; and adjusting the dimension of the iris according to the imaging ratio
Regarding claim 27, parent claim 19 expressly requires the diameter ratio and iris adjustment but does not expressly recite anterior chamber depth. The supporting embodiment identifies that depth as a distance between eye structures used in the model (column 7, lines 53–65) and shows that the ratio used for iris adjustment varies with that depth (column 8, lines 20–60). It would have been obvious to use the depth-dependent ratio in parent claim 19 so that its iris correction accounts for the change in chamber depth caused by applanation. This uses an expressly described model input to perform the same claimed iris-scaling function with the predictable, depth-appropriate correction. Claim 27 does not require that depth be used as a separate factor independently of its effect on the ratio.
28
The ophthalmic surgical system of Claim 26, wherein correcting for torsion according to the adjusted iris dimension comprises:
identifying a pseudo-rotation of the iris according to the dimension of the iris; and
taking the pseudo-rotation into account to correct for torsion.
19
identifying a pseudo-rotation of the iris according to the dimension of the iris; and taking the pseudo-rotation into account to correct for torsion;
Regarding claim 28, the rationale provided for claim 21 is incorporated herein. Parent claim 19 expressly includes the additional limitations reproduced above as part of the same surgical system. Accordingly, claim 28 is not patentably distinct from parent claim 19.
30
The ophthalmic surgical system of Claim 21, wherein the cornea is substantially flattened when in contact with the patient interface, and wherein the model reflects the substantially flattened cornea.
20
The ophthalmic surgical system of claim 19, wherein the cornea is substantially flattened.
Regarding claim 30, parent claim 20 incorporates all of claim 19 and expressly requires a substantially flattened cornea. Claim 20 does not expressly state that the model reflects that flattened cornea. However, Fig. 3B and column 8, lines 10–19, describe the flattened-cornea model supporting the claimed real-pupil-diameter imaging condition. It would have been obvious to represent that flattened geometry in the model of the claim 20 system so that the model corresponds to the corneal condition being imaged and supplies the appropriate pupil-diameter correction. The claimed model and imaging state thereby remain consistent, with the predictable result described for Fig. 3B.
Regarding claims 31–38 and 40, the rationales provided for claims 21–28 and 30, respectively, are incorporated herein. The methods correspond to operation of the apparatus of parent claims 19 and 20 and perform the functions identified in the comparisons above.
This rejection is based on issued patent claims. See MPEP § 804. A terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome this rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting, provided the requirements of that rule, including common ownership, are satisfied. Alternatively, applicant may overcome the rejection by establishing that the rejected claims are patentably distinct from the reference claims.
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 21–26, 30–36, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Scott (Scott et al, WO 2014/172621 A2, 2014) in view of Aguirre ( Aguirre et al (2019). A model of the entrance pupil of the human eye. Scientific Reports, 9(1) ).
Regarding claim 21, Scott teaches an ophthalmic surgical system for adjusting a dimension of an eye, comprising:
a camera configured to generate a surgical image of the eye in contact with a patient interface, the eye having a cornea and an iris defining a pupil, the pupil having a real pupil diameter, the cornea distorted by the patient interface, the surgical image including the pupil as imaged with the patient interface coupled to the eye; and
( [00125], [00130], [00193], [00198]: Scott describes the cornea and iris defining the pupil, camera imaging during patient-interface contact, and an image showing the iris and pupil with distortion resulting from the interface. )
a computer configured to:
access the surgical image of the eye with the distorted cornea;
( [00133], [00193], [00198]: Scott describes processor-based control electronics receiving imaging input and processing the image obtained when the patient interface contacts and distorts the eye. )
adjust one or more of the surgical image using an eye model to correct image distortion in a manner that takes into account a curvature of the cornea; and
( [00194], [00195]: Scott describes ray tracing through a full-thickness corneal profile map using Snell’s law and refractive indices to correct image distortions caused by the corneal surfaces. Scott further describes adjusting one or both images in response to distortion. The corneal profile and ray-tracing representation correspond to the eye model.. )
use registration of images adjusted to distortion to compensate for the distorted cornea when performing a surgical procedure on the eye.
( [00193], [00197], [00198], [00200]: Scott describes image registration, mapping image structures to account for interface-induced distortion, and aligning images having corresponding distortion to determine the position and angle of the eye and adjust laser-pulse locations for treatment. )
Scott teaches the surgical imaging and distortion-compensation system discussed above. Aguirre further teaches modeling a physical pupil dimension and determining its refracted appearance through the cornea, as follows:
a camera configured to generate an image of the eye, the eye having a cornea and an iris defining a pupil, the pupil having a real pupil diameter, the cornea, the surgical image including the pupil with the real pupil diameter; and
( p. 2, “Iris and aperture stop”; p. 4, “Perspective projection” and “Entrance Pupil of a Stationary Eye”; p. 5, Fig. 2: Aguirre describes camera images of an eye having a cornea and an iris defining a physical pupil opening. Aguirre models the physical opening using a specified aperture-stop radius and distinguishes that physical dimension from the apparent entrance-pupil dimension produced by corneal refraction. In particular, Aguirre identifies a physical aperture-stop diameter of 5.3 mm corresponding to an apparent entrance-pupil diameter of 6 mm after accounting for corneal magnification. )
adjust the real pupil diameter of the image using an eye model to yield a refracted pupil diameter that takes into account a curvature of the cornea; and
( p. 2, equations (1)–(2); p. 4, “Perspective projection” and “Ray tracing”; p. 5, Fig. 2: Aguirre teaches an eye model incorporating the geometry of the anterior and posterior corneal surfaces and their refractive properties. The model specifies the physical pupil opening, traces rays from points on its boundary through the corneal surfaces, and projects the resulting boundary points into the camera image to determine the apparent entrance-pupil dimensions. This calculation relates the physical pupil diameter to its refracted apparent diameter while accounting for corneal curvature. )
use the refracted pupil diameter to compensate for the distorted cornea.
( p. 4, “Ray tracing” and “Entrance Pupil of a Stationary Eye”; p. 5, Fig. 2: Aguirre explains that corneal refraction magnifies the imaged pupil and displaces and distorts its apparent shape when viewed off-axis. Aguirre’s optical model accounts for those effects when determining the apparent pupil boundary and dimensions. These teachings provide a technique for accounting for corneal refraction in pupil-image geometry. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Aguirre’s pupil-dimension modeling technique into Scott’s image-correction and registration processing to account quantitatively for corneal magnification when comparing pupil features for surgical alignment. Scott already employs corneal-profile information, refractive indices, and ray tracing to correct ocular-image distortion [00194–00195] and uses image alignment to adjust surgical laser-pulse locations [00200]. Aguirre supplies a compatible technique for calculating apparent pupil dimensions from physical pupil dimensions and corneal optical properties [pp. 2, 4–5]. A skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of obtaining modeled apparent pupil dimensions because both techniques calculate the optical effects of corneal surfaces using ray tracing. Incorporating those dimensions into Scott’s image-comparison processing would predictably account for corneal magnification in the pupil features used for alignment. The proposed modification therefore applies a known optical-modeling technique to improve an existing optical image-correction system in the same manner.
Regarding claim 22, Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches the ophthalmic surgical system of claim 21:
further comprising a laser device configured to direct a laser beam towards the eye; and
( Scott > [00125], [00131], [00136]: Scott describes a cutting laser subsystem, shared optics that direct and focus laser pulses through the patient interface, and an assembly configured to project and scan the laser beam into the eye to perform tissue photodisruption. )
the computer further configured to use the refracted pupil diameter to perform the surgical procedure on the eye while compensating for the distorted cornea.
( Aguirre > p. 4, “Perspective projection,” “Ray tracing,” and “Entrance Pupil of a Stationary Eye”; Scott > [00194–00195], [00200]: Aguirre determines the refracted entrance-pupil dimensions from the physical pupil dimensions using corneal geometry and refraction. Scott supplies the surgical use and corneal-distortion compensation: its computer corrects image distortion caused by the corneal surfaces [00194–00195] and adjusts surgical laser-pulse locations according to alignment of images having corresponding distortion [00200], thereby accounting for the distorted cornea when positioning the surgical treatment. In Scott [as modified by Aguirre]’s system as explained from claim 21, Aguirre’s refracted pupil-dimension calculation is incorporated into that image-compensation processing used to position the surgical laser treatment. )
Regarding claim 23, Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches the ophthalmic surgical system of claim 21, wherein adjusting the real pupil diameter of the surgical image using the eye model comprises:
accessing information describing one or more of the following of the eye: a distance between structures of the eye, a refractive power of a structure of the eye, a thickness of a structure of the eye, and a curvature of a structure of the eye; and
( Aguirre > p. 2, “Cornea,” equations (1)–(2), and “Iris and aperture stop”; p. 9, “Discussion”: Aguirre specifies anterior and posterior corneal surface geometry, a corneal thickness of 0.55 mm at the apex, and an iris position 3.9 mm posterior to the anterior corneal surface. Aguirre also states that the model accommodates custom biometric measurements of a particular eye. These model inputs describe structural distances, thickness, and curvature, satisfying the recited “one or more” alternatives. )
including the information in the eye model.
( Aguirre > p. 2, equations (1)–(2) and “Iris and aperture stop”; p. 4, “Ray tracing”: Aguirre incorporates the specified corneal surface geometry, thickness, iris position, and refractive indices into its computational eye model. Its ray-tracing calculation uses the modeled surfaces and their radii, positions, and refractive indices to determine the apparent pupil boundary and dimensions. )
Regarding claim 24, Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches the ophthalmic surgical system of claim 21, wherein the eye model includes a representation of geometric optics and describes paths of light rays through the eye.
( Aguirre > p. 4, “Ray tracing”; p. 5, Fig. 2: Aguirre performs three-dimensional ray tracing through modeled optical surfaces. Figure 2 illustrates rays traveling from a physical pupil-boundary point through the aqueous humor, posterior and anterior corneal surfaces, and air toward the camera. The model therefore represents geometric optics and describes light-ray paths through the eye. )
Regarding claim 25, Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches the ophthalmic surgical system of claim 21, wherein the eye model includes representation of a flattened cornea, a cornea with a curvature, or both.
( Aguirre > pp. 1–2, “Cornea,” equations (1)–(2); p. 5, Fig. 2: Aguirre represents the anterior corneal surface as a tri-axial ellipsoid and specifies the posterior corneal surface geometry. Figure 2 depicts rays passing through these curved corneal surfaces. Aguirre thus satisfies the recited alternative of a model representing “a cornea with a curvature”. )
Regarding claim 26, Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches the ophthalmic surgical system of claim 21, the computer further configured to:
adjust a dimension of the iris of the surgical image using the eye model; and
( Scott > [0026], [00194–00195], [00197–00198]: Scott describes processor-executed image adjustments accounting for magnification differences and interface-induced distortion. Scott uses corneal-profile information and ray tracing to correct images of structures viewed through the cornea, and specifically maps structures of the iris in the docked image to corresponding locations in an undistorted image or physical-eye coordinate system. Correcting magnification and remapping the iris structures adjusts their spatial dimensions in the image using the corneal optical model. )
correct for torsion according to the adjusted iris dimension.
( Scott > [0026], [00193–00195], [00197–00198], [00200]: Scott describes adjusting ocular images to account for magnification differences and corneal or patient-interface-induced distortion, including mapping iris structures to corresponding locations in a reference image. Scott registers the iris images using image matching or pattern recognition to determine the cyclotorsional angle. The distortion adjustment corrects the spatial dimensions of the iris features used for registration, and Scott uses the resulting angular alignment to adjust surgical laser-pulse locations. Accordingly, Scott compensates for torsion using the dimension-adjusted iris image. )
Regarding claim 30, Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches the ophthalmic surgical system of claim 21, wherein the cornea is substantially flattened when in contact with the patient interface, and wherein the model reflects the substantially flattened cornea.
( Scott > [00251], [00194–00195], [00199]: Scott expressly describes applying its embodiments to an applanating patient interface that flattens the cornea through contact with the interface. Scott further describes using a full-thickness corneal-profile map and ray tracing to account for the optical effects of the corneal surfaces, and using corneal-profile data for treatment mapping with the patient interface coupled to the eye. Read together, these disclosures apply Scott’s corneal-profile-based optical model to its applanating-interface embodiment, with the model representing the substantially flattened corneal geometry used for image-distortion correction. )
Regarding claims 31–36 and 40, the rationale provided in the rejection of claims 21–26 and 30 is incorporated herein. Accordingly, the ophthalmic surgical system for adjusting a dimension of an eye of claims 21–26 and 30 correspond to the method of adjusting a dimension of an eye of claims 31–36 and 40, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claims are all rejected.
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Scott [as modified by Aguirre] in view of Endo (Endo et al, US 2011/0267582 A1, 2011).
Regarding claim 27, Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches the ophthalmic surgical system of claim 26, wherein adjusting the dimension of the iris of the surgical image comprises:
determining an imaging ratio of the real pupil diameter to the refracted pupil diameter; and
( Aguirre > p. 4, “Perspective projection,” “Ray tracing,” and “Entrance Pupil of a Stationary Eye”: Aguirre identifies a 5.3 mm physical aperture-stop diameter corresponding to a 6 mm apparent entrance-pupil diameter after accounting for corneal magnification. These corresponding dimensions provide the real-to-refracted pupil-diameter ratio through the straightforward calculation 5.3/6. These disclosures establish the optical relationship [imaging ratio] between physical and refracted pupil dimensions. )
adjusting the dimension of the iris according to a modeled corneal refraction and an anterior chamber depth.
( Aguirre > pp. 2–3, “Iris and aperture stop”; p. 4, “Ray tracing”: Aguirre specifies the iris plane 3.9 mm posterior to the anterior corneal surface and includes that position in its optical model. Aguirre accounts for corneal magnification when converting a mean visible iris radius of 5.91 mm to a modeled physical iris radius of 5.57 mm. These disclosures provide iris-dimension adjustment using modeled corneal refraction and iris-to-cornea geometry. )
Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches the iris-dimension adjustment discussed above. Endo further teaches explicitly calculating and applying a dimensional conversion based on anterior chamber depth, as follows:
adjusting the dimension of the pupil according to the imaging ratio and an anterior chamber depth.
( Endo > [0056–0061], [0077]: Endo calculates an enlargement factor M from apparent anterior chamber depth ACD′ and actual anterior chamber depth ACD according to M = (ACD′/1)/(ACD/na). Endo then calculates actual pupil diameter PS from apparent pupil diameter PS′ according to PS = PS′/M. The reciprocal 1/M therefore represents the real-to-refracted pupil-diameter ratio used for dimensional conversion. Endo also applies the depth-dependent enlargement factor to resize an optical-design graphic for superposition on an anterior-segment image. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Endo’s depth-dependent dimensional conversion into Scott [as modified by Aguirre]’s iris-dimension adjustment, because Endo teaches calculating optical magnification from anterior chamber depth and applying the resulting factor to convert dimensions. Such a modification would have predictably accounted for depth-dependent magnification when scaling iris features for registration and amounted to applying Endo’s known dimensional-conversion technique to an existing corneal image-correction process according to its established function, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 37, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 27 is incorporated herein. Accordingly, the ophthalmic surgical system for adjusting a dimension of an eye of claim 27 corresponds to the method of adjusting a dimension of an eye of claim 37, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claim is rejected.
Claims 28, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Scott [as modified by Aguirre] in view of Lemonis (Lemonis et al, US 2015/0148788 A1, 2015).
Regarding claim 28, Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches the ophthalmic surgical system of claim 26, wherein correcting for torsion according to the adjusted iris dimension comprises:
identifying a cyclotorsional angle of the iris according to the dimension of the iris; and
( Scott > [00193–00195], [00197–00198]: Scott adjusts iris-image geometry to account for corneal and patient-interface-induced distortion and registers the iris images using image matching or pattern recognition to determine the cyclotorsional angle. )
taking the angular alignment of the distortion-adjusted iris images into account to correct for torsion.
( Scott > [00193], [00200]: Scott determines rotational alignment from iris-image registration and uses the resulting angular alignment to adjust surgical laser-pulse locations, thereby compensating for torsion during treatment. )
Scott [as modified by Aguirre] teaches iris-image registration and torsion correction. Lemonis further teaches distinguishing pseudo-rotation from actual cyclotorsion, as follows:
identifying a pseudo-rotation of the iris according to the dimension of the iris; and
( Lemonis > [0015–0016], [0026–0027]: Lemonis identifies apparent rotation caused by movement of iris structures accompanying pupil-size changes. It determines pseudo-rotation from iris-feature coordinate differences and corresponding pupil-size differences, thereby accounting for size-related changes in iris geometry. )
taking the pseudo-rotation into account to correct for torsion.
( Lemonis > [0019], [0029–0030]: Lemonis subtracts pseudo-rotation from measured cyclotorsion to determine actual cyclotorsion and adjusts the laser-treatment profile to compensate for that actual cyclotorsion. )
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate Lemonis’s pseudo-rotation compensation into Scott [as modified by Aguirre]’s iris-registration and torsion-correction process, because Lemonis teaches that pupil-size-related iris deformation can mimic actual rotation and cause incorrect treatment placement. Such a modification would have predictably distinguished apparent rotation from actual cyclotorsion and improved treatment alignment by applying a known compensation technique to the existing iris-registration process according to its established function, with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 38, the rationale provided in the rejection of claim 28 is incorporated herein. Accordingly, the ophthalmic surgical system for adjusting a dimension of an eye of claim 28 corresponds to the method of adjusting a dimension of an eye of claim 38, and performs the steps disclosed herein. Therefore, the claim is rejected.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEN KUDO whose telephone number is (571)272-4498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 5pm.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
KEN KUDO
Examiner
Art Unit 2671
/KEN KUDO/Examiner, Art Unit 2671
/VINCENT RUDOLPH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights