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 .
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, 17 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, lines 13-17, and claim 17, lines 20-23, recite “refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate a second one of the target regions, which has not yet been irradiated, with the amount of energy designated for the second one of the target regions.” It is unclear if this limitation requires the second one of the target regions to not be irradiated and/or if an alternative amount of energy that is not designated for the second one of the target regions is sufficient. It is also unclear if the requirement for a target to be a first and second one of the target regions is sequential or a condition that is met by irradiation for which a plurality of target regions can be considered a second one of the target regions until one is irradiated. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention and therefore would not be able to determine the metes and bounds. Examiner interprets “refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate” to include an alternative amount of energy that is not designated for the second one of the target regions, and first and second target regions identified by sequential targeting for continued examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-13, 17-19, 23-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gertner et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2009/0161827 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Gertner teaches a system (10, Fig. 1A) [0160], comprising:
a radiation source (420, Fig. 1A); and
a controller (control module, at least imaging module (400, Fig. 1A) and processing module (501), Fig. 1B), configured to:
designate multiple target regions on an eye of a patient for irradiation with respective amounts of energy ([0236-0239]; target alignment step processes image of eye to identify structures such as limbus and first corneal reflection; calculates derivative landmarks such as center of limbus; target structures and radiation sensitive structures mapped to external-system coordinates, [0251-0252]; treatment planning step calculates total beam duration time from known beam intensity settings, total radiation dose required, and predicted beam attenuation),
cause a radiation source to irradiate at least a first one of the target regions [0241],
subsequently to causing the radiation source to irradiate at least the first one of the target regions, by processing an image of the eye, identify a change in the eye ([0254]; tracking absolute target position during the treatment step processes eye movement to generate a spatial map of radiation exposure of the target area and surrounding tissue), and
in response to identifying the change, refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate a second one of the target regions (311b, Fig. 9), which has not yet been irradiated, with the amount of energy designated for the second one of the target regions ([0270-0275]; treatment planning [0252] and radiation exposure tracking [0254] steps determine beam settings, such as intensity and duration, and gating function to control radiation exposure; beam terminates when calculated beam settings for a designated dose exceeds a total radiation exposure threshold), ([0293], Fig. 9 & 10; a first one of the target regions (311c, Fig. 9) in the anterior portion of the eye and a radiation sensitive structure (350, Fig. 9) in the posterior portion of the eye, are both irradiated along a first beam axis (1400c, Fig. 9) and a spatial map is generated from target tracking; a second one of the target regions (311b, Fig.9) in the anterior portion of the eye, that has not been irradiated, has a second beam axis (1400b, Fig. 9); when second beam axis would overlap and exceed a total radiation threshold for said radiation sensitive structure, gating function terminates beam exposure along that axis).
Regarding claim 2, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 1, and further teaches a system wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions by:
designating a new target region, and
causing the radiation source to irradiate the new target region instead of the second one of the target regions ([0271-0275]; when total radiation exceeds threshold, additional targets along a single beam axis are terminated and targets along another beam axis are designated for treatment; irradiation continues until all beam axes are treated or have exceeded a total radiation threshold).
Regarding claim 3, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 1, and further teaches a system wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions (311b, Fig. 9) with the amount of energy designated for the second one of the target regions [0252] by causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions with another amount of energy that is less than the designated amount ([0270-0275]; gating function necessitates a second one of target region (311b) to receive less energy than the designated amount when total radiation exposure for optic nerve (350) would exceed a threshold).
Regarding claim 7, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 1, and further teaches a system wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions (311b, Fig. 9) in response to a distance (clearance “c”, Fig. 7) between the second one of the target regions and another region of the eye (limbus (26), Fig. 7 & 9), ([0262], [0269]; alternative method for tracking absolute target position constructs a map of eye excursion to calculate total radiation distribution as a function of distance), ([0297], [0270-0275], Fig. 7 & 9; gating function necessitates terminating beam exposure when the distance (clearance “c”) between the second one of the target regions (311b) and another region of the eye (26) is small enough to exceed a total radiation exposure threshold for said region).
Regarding claim 8, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 1, and further teaches a system,
wherein the controller is further configured to identify an anatomical feature at the second one of the target regions ([0239]; radiation sensitive structures include the optic disc and the optic nerve of the eye), and
wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions (311b, Fig. 9) in response to identifying the anatomical feature ([0270-0275]; radiation sensitive structures such as the optic disc necessitates setting a total radiation threshold below a damage threshold thereby terminating beam exposure at the second one of the target regions when exposure would exceed said threshold).
Regarding claim 9, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 8, and further teaches a system,
wherein the controller is further configured to calculate a predicted measure of overlap between a radiation beam irradiating the second one of the target regions (311b, Fig. 9) and the anatomical feature ([0301], Fig. 10; overlapping beam geometry can be used to calculate the degree of overlap and the resulting total radiation exposure), and
wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the predicted measure of overlap ([0301], [0270-0275]; overlap regions can be optimized by the treatment planning system thereby terminating beam exposure at a second one of the target regions in response to an overlapping region when beam exposure would exceed the total radiation threshold).
Regarding claim 10, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 8, and further teaches a system,
wherein the anatomical feature is a second-target-region anatomical feature ([0291], [0239], Fig. 9; radiation sensitive structure (optic nerve (350)) at second one of target regions (311b)),
wherein the controller is further configured to identify a first-target-region anatomical feature at the first one of the target regions ([0291], [0239], Fig. 9; radiation sensitive structure (optic nerve (350)) nearby first one of target regions (311c)), and
wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to identifying the first-target-region anatomical feature ([0239], [0270-0275], Fig. 9; target alignment step identifies first one of target region (311a) and an anatomical feature in first one of target region (optic nerve (350)); target alignment step identifies second one of target region (311b); gating function necessitates terminating beam exposure when second one of target region (311b) overlaps with first-target-region anatomical feature (350) and exceeds total radiation threshold).
Regarding claim 11, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 10, and further teaches a system wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions (311b, Fig. 9) in response to the first-target-region anatomical feature (350, Fig. 9) and the second-target-region anatomical feature (350, Fig. 9) being of the same type ([0239], [0270-0275], Fig. 9; anatomical features of the same type necessitate equivalent gate function thresholds thereby terminating beam exposure at the second one of the target regions (311b) when anatomical features (350) of the same type receive equivalent total radiation exposure from irradiation of the first one of the target regions (311c)).
Regarding claim 12, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 10, and teaches a system,
wherein the controller is further configured to:
calculate an estimated measure of overlap between (a) a first radiation beam (1400c, Fig. 9) that irradiated the first one of the target regions (311c, Fig. 9) and (b) the first-target-region anatomical feature (350, Fig. 9) ([0291], [0301], Fig. 9 & 10; total radiation exposure estimates determined from overlapping beam geometry and collimation whereby total radiation exposure is a function of the estimated measure of overlap; first radiation beam target (3275); first-target-region anatomical feature (optic nerve (3260))), and
calculate a predicted measure of overlap between (a) a second radiation beam (1400b, Fig. 9) irradiating the second one of the target regions (311b) and (b) the first-target-region anatomical feature (350, Fig. 9) ([0291], [0301], Fig. 9 & 10; second radiation beam target (3250); first-target-region anatomical feature (optic nerve (3260))),
wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the predicted measure of overlap and the estimated measure of overlap ([0301], [0270-0275]; estimated measure of overlap between first beam and first-target-region feature; predicted measure of overlap between second beam and first-target-region feature; gating function necessitates termination of beam exposure at second one of target regions when a total radiation threshold for the first-target-region feature would be exceeded by additional radiation exposure from the second beam).
Regarding claim 13, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 12, and teaches a system,
wherein the controller is further configured to:
calculate an estimated amount of energy delivered by a first radiation beam to the first-target-region anatomical feature ([0301], Fig. 10; total radiation exposure estimates determined from overlapping beam geometry and collimation; first radiation beam target (3270); first-target-region anatomical feature (optic nerve (3260))), and
calculate a predicted amount of energy delivered by a second radiation beam to the second-target-region anatomical feature ([0301], Fig. 10; second radiation beam target (3250); second-target-region anatomical feature can be any radiation sensitive structure within one of second target region), and
wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the predicted amount of energy and the estimated amount of energy ([0301], [0270-0275]).
Regarding claim 17, Gertner teaches a method, comprising:
designating multiple target regions on an eye of a patient for irradiation with respective amounts of energy ([0236-0239], [0251-0252]);
causing a radiation source to irradiate at least a first one of the target regions [0241];
subsequently to causing the radiation source to irradiate at least the first one of the target regions, by processing an image of the eye, identifying a change in the eye [0254]; and
in response to identifying the change, refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate a second one of the target regions, which has not yet been irradiated, with the amount of energy designated for the second one of the target regions [0270-0275].
Regarding claim 18, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 17, and further teaches a method wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises:
designating a new target region; and
causing the radiation source to irradiate the new target region instead of the second one of the target regions [0271-0275].
Regarding claim 19, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 17, and further teaches a method wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions with the amount of energy designated for the second one of the target regions comprises causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions with another amount of energy that is less than the designated amount [0270-0275].
Regarding claim 23, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 17, and further teaches a method wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to a distance between the second one of the target regions and another region of the eye ([0262-0269], [0297], [0270-0275]).
Regarding claim 24, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 17, and a method further comprising identifying an anatomical feature at the second one of the target regions [0239],
wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to identifying the anatomical feature [0270-0275].
Regarding claim 25, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 24, and teaches a method further comprising calculating a predicted measure of overlap between a radiation beam irradiating the second one of the target regions and the anatomical feature ([0301], Fig. 10), wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the predicted measure of overlap ([0301], [0270-0275]).
Regarding claim 26, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 24, and further teaches a method,
wherein the anatomical feature is a second-target-region anatomical feature [0239],
wherein the method further comprises identifying a first-target-region anatomical feature at the first one of the target regions ([0291], [0239]), and
wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to identifying the first-target-region anatomical feature ([0239], [0270-0275]).
Regarding claim 27, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 26, and further teaches a method wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the first-target-region anatomical feature and the second-target-region anatomical feature being of the same type ([0239], [0270-0275], Fig. 9).
Regarding claim 28, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 26, and teaches a method further comprising:
calculating an estimated measure of overlap between (a) a first radiation beam that irradiated the first one of the target regions and (b) the first-target-region anatomical feature ([0291], [0301], Fig. 9 & 10); and
calculating a predicted measure of overlap between (a) a second radiation beam irradiating the second one of the target regions and (b) the first-target-region anatomical feature ([0291], [0301], Fig. 9 & 10),
wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the predicted measure of overlap and the estimated measure of overlap ([0301], [0270-0275]).
Regarding claim 29, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 28, and teaches a method further comprising:
calculating an estimated amount of energy delivered by a first radiation beam to the first-target-region anatomical feature ([0301], Fig. 10); and
calculating a predicted amount of energy delivered by a second radiation beam to the second-target-region anatomical feature ([0301], Fig. 10),
wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the predicted amount of energy and the estimated amount of energy ([0301], [0270-0275]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 14-16, 30-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gertner et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2009/0161827 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 1, but does not disclose,
wherein the controller is further configured to calculate a risk measure associated with irradiating the second one of the target regions, and
wherein the controller is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the risk measure,
as claimed.
However, Gertner teaches another embodiment that employs an eye guide ([0350], Fig. 21A) and an embodiment that uses cadaver eyes ([0343], Fig. 15B),
wherein the controller (processor (501), Fig. 1B) is further configured to calculate a risk measure associated with irradiating the second one of the target regions ([0417], Fig. 21A; risk measure is interpreted to include error conditions linked to radiation of a target region and/or error determinations based on radiation beam and patient eye geometries ([0343], Fig. 15B), and
wherein the controller (processor (501), Fig. 1B) is configured to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the risk measure ([0417], Fig. 21A; error condition exceeding alignment threshold at the second one of the target regions, triggers gate function).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gertner with the controller configured to calculate a risk measure associated with irradiating the second one of the target regions and to refrain from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the risk measure as further taught by Gertner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve prediction accuracy for dose absorption by adjusting treatment parameters to account for error conditions (Gertner, [0343]).
Regarding claim 15, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 14, but does not disclose wherein the controller is configured to calculate the risk measure based on a medical profile of the patient as claimed.
However, Gertner teaches the embodiment using cadaver eyes ([0343], Fig. 15B), wherein the controller is configured to calculate the risk measure based on a medical profile of the patient ([0343]; patient profile determined by A-scan).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gertner with the controller configured to calculate the risk measure based on a medical profile of the patient as further taught by Gertner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve prediction accuracy for dose absorption by adjusting treatment parameters to account for error conditions (Gertner, [0343]).
Regarding claim 16, Gertner teaches the modified system according to claim 14, and further teaches a system,
wherein the controller is further configured to identify an anatomical feature at the second one of the target regions [0239],
but does not disclose,
wherein the controller is configured to calculate the risk measure based on a type of the second anatomical feature,
as claimed.
However, Gertner teaches the embodiment that employs an eye guide ([0350], Fig. 21A) and the embodiment using cadaver eyes ([0343], Fig. 15B),
wherein the controller is configured to calculate the risk measure based on a type of the second anatomical feature ([0417], Fig. 21A; risk measure is interpreted to include error conditions linked to radiation of a target region and/or error determinations based on radiation beam and patient eye geometries), ([0343], Fig. 15B; error calculations for a second anatomical feature, at a second one of target regions, are based on a type of anatomical feature).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gertner with the controller configured to calculate the risk measure based on a type of the second anatomical feature as further taught by Gertner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve prediction accuracy for dose absorption by adjusting treatment parameters to account for error conditions (Gertner, [0343]).
Regarding claim 30, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 17, but does not disclose a method further comprising calculating a risk measure associated with irradiating the second one of the target regions, wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the risk measure as claimed.
However, Gertner teaches the embodiment that employs an eye guide ([0350], Fig. 21A) and the embodiment that uses cadaver eyes ([0343], Fig. 15B),
further comprising calculating a risk measure associated with irradiating the second one of the target regions ([0417], Fig. 21A), wherein refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions comprises refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the risk measure ([0417], Fig. 21A).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gertner with the method of calculating a risk measure associated with irradiating the second one of the target regions and refraining from causing the radiation source to irradiate the second one of the target regions in response to the risk measure as further taught by Gertner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve prediction accuracy for dose absorption by adjusting treatment parameters to account for error conditions (Gertner, [0343]).
Regarding claim 31, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 30, but does not disclose wherein calculating the risk measure comprises calculating the risk measure based on a medical profile of the patient as claimed.
However, Gertner teaches the embodiment using cadaver eyes ([0343], Fig. 15B), wherein calculating the risk measure comprises calculating the risk measure based on a medical profile of the patient [0343].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gertner with the method of calculating the risk measure based on a medical profile of the patient as further taught by Gertner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve prediction accuracy for dose absorption by adjusting treatment parameters to account for error conditions (Gertner, [0343]).
Regarding claim 32, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 30, and teaches a method further comprising identifying an anatomical feature at the second one of the target regions [0239],
but does not disclose,
wherein calculating the risk measure comprises calculating the risk measure based on a type of the second anatomical feature,
as claimed.
However, Gertner teaches the embodiment that employs an eye guide ([0350], Fig. 21A) and the embodiment using cadaver eyes ([0343], Fig. 15B),
wherein calculating the risk measure comprises calculating the risk measure based on a type of the second anatomical feature ([0417], Fig. 21A), ([0343], Fig. 15B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gertner with the method of calculating the risk measure based on a type of the second anatomical feature as further taught by Gertner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve prediction accuracy for dose absorption by adjusting treatment parameters to account for error conditions (Gertner, [0343]).
Claim(s) 4-6, 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gertner et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2009/0161827 A1), and in view of Claus et al (US Pre Grant Publication 2016/0278983 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the change includes bleeding.
However, Claus teaches a system for optimization of laser photocoagulation, and further teaches a system for monitoring a change comprising bleeding ([0078], [0081], [0113]; fluorescein angiogram images detect fluid leakage and OCT angiogram images detect microvascular abnormalities that cause fluid leakage such as retinal tears).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gertner with the system wherein the change includes bleeding as taught by Claus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve treatment efficacy by identifying microvascular abnormalities (Claus, [0005]).
Regarding claim 5, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the change includes swelling.
However, Claus teaches a system for optimization of laser photocoagulation, and further teaches a system for monitoring a change comprising swelling ([0113]; macular edema).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gertner with the system wherein the change includes swelling as taught by Claus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve treatment efficacy by identifying microvascular abnormalities (Claus, [0005]).
Regarding claim 6, Gertner teaches the system according to claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the change includes a change in color.
However, Claus teaches a system for optimization of laser photocoagulation, and further teaches a system for monitoring a change comprising color ([0048]; OCT tomography data includes coloration information to detect retinal abnormalities).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Gertner with the system wherein the change includes a change in color as taught by Claus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve treatment efficacy by identifying microvascular abnormalities (Claus, [0005]).
Regarding claim 20, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 17, but does not disclose wherein the change includes bleeding.
However, Claus teaches a method for optimization of laser photocoagulation, and further teaches a method for monitoring a change comprising bleeding ([0078], [0081], [0113]).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gertner with the method wherein the change includes bleeding as taught by Claus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve treatment efficacy by identifying microvascular abnormalities (Claus, [0005]).
Regarding claim 21, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 17, but does not disclose wherein the change includes swelling.
However, Claus teaches a method for optimization of laser photocoagulation, and further teaches a method for monitoring a change comprising swelling [0113].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gertner with the method wherein the change includes swelling as taught by Claus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve treatment efficacy by identifying microvascular abnormalities (Claus, [0005]).
Regarding claim 22, Gertner teaches the method according to claim 17, but does not disclose wherein the change includes a change in color.
However, Claus teaches a method for optimization of laser photocoagulation, and further teaches a method for monitoring a change comprising color [0048].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Gertner with the method wherein the change includes a change in color as taught by Claus. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make these modifications to improve treatment efficacy by identifying microvascular abnormalities (Claus, [0005]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Berlin (US Pre Grant Publication 2019/0117459 A1), discloses a system and method for detecting anatomical structures relative to target locations [0167]; controlling laser pulses when identifying anatomical structures ([0172-0173], [0175]); detecting changes such as obstruction of outflow [0069]; relative distances [0155]; ablation targets near anatomical structures [0154].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DWANE COLLARD whose telephone number is (571)272-6553. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ben 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.
/DWANE COLLARD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights