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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/23/2024. These drawings are acceptable.
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.
Claims 1-3, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Platt et al. US PGPub 2002/0100990 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 12/09/2025, hereinafter, “Platt”).
Regarding independent claim 1, Platt discloses a compact UV light delivery device, comprising:
an UV LED, to generate a UV beam (Fig. 3 shows source fiber 14 that passes UV light from arc lamp 12, pars. [0043-44], Fig. 5, source 46 produces UV light 44, par. [0051], Figs. 8, 9a, and 9b show spectral output of UV light emitting diode, pars. [0024-25], and an extended ultraviolet light source is provided by UV light emitting diodes for irradiating the lens, pars. [0011], [0038]);
a homogenizing beam coupler, to receive the UV beam from the UV LED, and to homogenize the UV beam such that a measure of non-uniformity of the output homogenized beam is smaller than the measure of non-uniformity of the received UV beam (Figs. 2, 3, and 5, main components of the irradiation system are a UV light source which may be a light emitting diode, par. [0036], condenser optics, a field lens, an apodizing filter, and projection optics, par. [0038], and as shown in Fig. 2, light output from arc lamp 12 is passed to the integrator, i.e., light guide, by spherical reflector 16 and the output of the integrator produces a uniform field, i.e. a flat top intensity profile, par. [0043], where Fig. 13 shows an example of a nomogram with a flat top intensity profile providing an even amount of intensity to the lens, par. [0081]);
an illumination optics, to receive the homogenized beam and to forward it as an illumination beam (Figs. 2, 3, and 5, critical illumination systems provide a uniform field and condenser lenses image the output of the integrator, i.e. the light guide, onto the apodizing filter, par. [0041], [0043]);
a spatial light modulator, to receive and to modulate the illumination beam into a modulated beam according to a procedure beam profile (a spatial light modulator can be used to generate a customized irradiation intensity profile, par. [0070]);
a projection optics, to receive and to project the modulated beam as a projection beam through its objective into an eye of a patient (Platt teaches the inclusion of projection optics for producing a spatially defined intensity pattern, pars. [0039], [0071]); and
an imaging system, to image the eye of the patient via the objective utilizing an imaging beam splitter, and to present the image on a user interface (Fig. 3, microscope 36 receives light from beam splitter 34 to permit observation of an implanted light adjustable lens during a procedure, pars [0041-45]).
Regarding dependent claim 2, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, wherein: the UV LED is configured to generate the UV beam with a peak wavelength in a range of 350nm-400nm (Fig. 8 shows the spectral output of the UV LED has a peak between 350 nm and 400 nm).
Regarding dependent claim 3, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, wherein: the UV LED is integrated into the housing of the compact UV light delivery device (Figs. 2, 3 and 4 show UV light source arc lamp 12 integrated into a housing, and because Platt teaches a UV LED is a suitable light source for the disclosed irradiation system, arc lamp 12 can be replaced with the UV LED, satisfying the limitation).
Regarding dependent claim 13, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, wherein: the homogenizing beam coupler is configured to carry out at least two of
homogenizing the received UV beam such that the measure of non-uniformity of the output homogenized beam is smaller than the measure of non-uniformity of the received UV beam (Figs. 2, 3, and 5, main components of the irradiation system are a UV light source which may be a light emitting diode, par. [0036], condenser optics, a field lens, an apodizing filter, and projection optics, par. [0038], and as shown in Fig. 2, light output from arc lamp 12 is passed to the integrator, i.e., light guide, by spherical reflector 16 and the output of the integrator produces a uniform field, i.e. a flat top intensity profile, par. [0043], where Fig. 13 shows an example of a nomogram with a flat top intensity profile providing an even amount of intensity to the lens, par. [0081]);
making an exit cross section approximate a circle better than a square (Platt in Fig. 13 illustrates an example of a "top hat" intensity profile, par. [0081], where the intensity profile is circular); and
generating the homogenized beam with a reduced numerical aperture.
Regarding dependent claim 14, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, wherein: the illumination optics is configured to guide the illumination beam onto the spatial light modulator with an approximately circular beam shape (Platt in Fig. 13 illustrates an example of a "top hat" intensity profile, par. [0081], and teaches the light output from an arc lamp 12 is launched into the integrator, an optical fiber in the form of a hollow liquid-filled waveguide 14, by a spherical reflector 16, and the output of the integrator produces a uniform field, i.e. a flat top intensity profile, and the flat top output of the light guide is focused onto an optical mask generator contained in a tube 18 to produce the desired irradiation pattern, par. [0043]).
Regarding dependent claim 20, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, the spatial light modulator comprising: a digital light reflector array, wherein individually addressable light reflectors of the array are capable of reflecting the incident illumination beam by a reflection angle according to the procedure beam profile, when in an “on” state (Platt discloses the desired apodized pattern could be dynamic such as that produced by an appropriate spatial light modulator such as a digital mirror device, rotating or translating patterns, or any other method to vary the intensity profile or integration time of the exposed radiation dynamically, par. [0038], and Platt discloses digital light processors are composed of an array of tiny square mirrors typically 17 microns on a side, and for uniform illumination on the digital light processor, the energy density profile applied to the lens is proportional to the number of times each mirror is activated and not to the intensity of the beam, par. [0072]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt as applied to claim 1 above in view of Muller et al. US PGPub 2014/0066835 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 12/09/2025, hereinafter, “Muller”).
Regarding dependent claim 4, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, but does not explicitly or specifically disclose wherein: the homogenizing beam coupler is configured to generate the homogenized beam with a beam intensity root mean square (RMS) variation less than 5%, wherein the beam intensity RMS variation is a measure of beam non-uniformity (Platt teaches the same beam profile variation can be accomplished with various types of spatial light modulators and standard display or projection optics, par. [0088], but does not disclose a beam intensity RMS variation less than 5%).
In a related field of invention, Muller discloses systems and methods for conducting an eye treatment (par. [0003]) and specifically discloses the use of a top hat beam with 3% root mean square variance (par. [0073]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Muller to the disclosure of Platt and modified the UV light delivery device and imaging system of Platt to incorporate the RMS variation of less than 5% for the beam intensity as taught by Muller, because Muller teaches the method provides uniform illumination (Muller, par. [0083]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt as applied in view of Muller as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Bencher et al. US PGPub 2022/0174246 A1 (hereinafter, “Bencher”).
Regarding dependent claim 5, Platt in view of Muller discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 4, and Muller further discloses wherein: the homogenizing beam coupler is configured to generate the homogenized beam with a beam intensity RMS variation of 3% (Muller discloses a top hat beam with 3% root mean square variance, par. [0073]).
The prior art combination of Platt in view of Muller does not specifically disclose with a beam intensity RMS variation less than 3%.
The Examiner contends that the prior art reference Muller discloses a value of 3% RMS variation is sufficiently close to the claimed range of less than 3% RMS variation to render it obvious. See MPEP 2144.05(I); Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 783, 227 USPQ 773, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (Court held as proper a rejection of a claim directed to an alloy of "having 0.8% nickel, 0.3% molybdenum, up to 0.1% iron, balance titanium" as obvious over a reference disclosing alloys of 0.75% nickel, 0.25% molybdenum, balance titanium and 0.94% nickel, 0.31% molybdenum, balance titanium, with the court opining that "[t]he proportions are so close that prima facie one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties.").
Here, the difference between 3% RMS variation and the endpoint of less than 3% RMS variation is insubstantial, representing less than a 1% difference while the difference in nickel content between the claimed invention and the prior art in Titanium Metals was 6.25%. Here, the 3% RMS variation from the prior art is substantially closer to Applicant’s claimed range than was the case in the Titanium Metals decision. Moreover, the present record does not demonstrate any substantial difference in operation, or any superior and unexpected effect, attributable to the claimed range of less than 3% RMS variation.
In view of the above facts, a person of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have reasonably concluded that the value of 3% RMS variation disclosed by Muller is sufficiently close to the claimed range of less than 3% RMS variation to render it obvious because the difference between 3% and the endpoint of less than 3% is insubstantial, a value of 3% is reasonably expected to have the same effect as if it were the endpoint of the range of less than 3% for RMS variation, and because there is no evidence to suggest criticality of the endpoint of the claimed range and/or that the endpoint of the claimed range is related to any superior and/or unexpected result.
Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Bencher discloses a projection system with a uniform intensity of exposure of less than 2% root mean square variation (par. [0118]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Bencher to the disclosure of Platt in view of Muller and modified Platt to include a beam intensity RMS variation of less than 3%, because Bencher teaches such a uniformity of intensity is feasible and desirable (Bencher, par. [0118]).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt as applied to claim 1 above in view of Xia et al. US PGPub 2018/0368915 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 05/14/2026, hereinafter, “Xia”).
Regarding dependent claim 6, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, but Platt does not explicitly or specifically disclose wherein: the homogenizing beam coupler has an entrance port with a square or rectangle cross section, and an exit port with a polygonal cross section, having more than four corners (Platt is silent as to the specific shapes of the entrance and exit ports of the homogenizing beam coupler equivalent).
In a related field of invention, Xia discloses a pattern laser comprising a plurality of laser devices (refer to abstract). Fig. 2 of Xia shows laser and fiber launch module 11 with pattern laser 10 (par. [0030]), and Fig. 3 shows the output of the beam coupler is a hexagonal bundle while the input is a rectangular input of an array of single fibers (par. [0032]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Xia to the disclosure of Platt and modified the UV light delivery device and imaging systems of Platt to have a hexagonal output, as taught by Xia, because Xia teaches a hexagonal shape is preferred (Xia, par. [0032]) and Xia further teaches the array can be moved as a block to a fresh area and a subsequent exposure can be delivered sequentially hence a large area can be covered very quickly (Xia, par. [0038]).
Regarding dependent claim 7, Platt in view of Xia discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 6, and Xia further discloses wherein: the polygonal exit port cross section is a hexagon or an octagon (Xia Fig. 3 shows the output of the beam coupler is a hexagonal bundle, par. [0032]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt as applied to claim 1 above in view of Werley et al. US PGPub 2022/0206280 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 05/14/2026, hereinafter, “Werley”).
Regarding dependent claim 8, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, but does not explicitly or specifically disclose wherein: the homogenizing beam coupler is configured to additionally reduce a numerical aperture of the homogenized beam (Platt is silent as to the size of the numerical aperture of the imaging system disclosed therein, and therefore does not disclose or suggest the reduction of the numerical aperture by the homogenizing beam coupler equivalent).
In the same field of invention, Werley discloses an optical sample imaging system (refer to at least abstract) wherein the homogenizing beam coupler is configured to additionally reduce a numerical aperture of the homogenized beam (Werley teaches a light pipe which provides total internal reflection reduces reflection losses while a total internal reflection angle limits the input beam's numerical aperture NA, par. [0115]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Werley to the disclosure of Platt and modified the UV light delivery device and imaging system of Platt, to incorporate the reducing and limiting of the numerical aperture as taught by Werley because it reduces the maximum angle of light into the beam and reduces reflection losses (Werley, par. [0115]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt in view of Werley as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Raksi et al. US Patent 8,267,925 B2 (hereinafter, “Raksi”).
Regarding dependent claim 9, Platt in view of Werley discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 8, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein: the homogenizing beam coupler reduces the numerical aperture of the UV beam of the UV LED by at least 10% (Platt is silent as to any reduction of numerical aperture, and Werley teaches the reduction of the numerical aperture, but does not specify or suggest a reduction of at least 10%).
Thus, the prior art combination of Platt in view of Werley discloses the claimed invention except for a reduction of the numerical aperture by at least 10%. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the numerical aperture of the UV LED disclosed by Platt, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art, In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (C.C.P.A. 1955). In the current instance, the numerical aperture of an optical system is an art recognized results effective variable in that the numerical aperture is related to the field of view of the optical system as taught by Werley in at least par. [0080] thereof. Thus, one would have been motivated to optimize the numerical aperture because it is an art-recognized result-effective variable and it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art, In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP §2144.05(II)(B) “after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a personal of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.” Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success when making this modification because adjusting the numerical aperture of an optical system is a routine activity in the design of optical systems.
Nevertheless, in a related field of invention, Raksi discloses an ophthalmic laser system (refer to at least title and abstract), shown in at least Fig. 1, wherein the numerical aperture NA can be adjusted to a sequence of numerical apertures NA(z) at a sequence of Z focal depths to reduce a representative total aberration by at least a P(scan) percentage relative to analogous laser systems (col. 3, lines 39-44). Raksi further teaches the numerical aperture NA can be adjusted from a first value when a corneal procedure is performed to a second value when a lens procedure is performed, where the first value is in the range of 0.2-0.5 and the second value is in the range of 0.1-0.3 (col. 3 lines 54-59), and a change from NA of 0.5 to 0.3 is a reduction of 40%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Raksi to the disclosure of Platt and included an adjustable mechanism for the numerical aperture of the numerical aperture of the UV LED disclosed by Platt, because Raksi teaches the numerical aperture NA is adjustable to reduce, at a Z focal depth, the total aberration of the optical system (Raksi, col. 2 lines 37-39) and Raksi further teaches the numerical aperture is optimized
to focus a laser beam to a specific operating depth (Raksi, col. 6, lines 5-7). As such the prior art combination of Platt in view of Werley and Raksi teaches the homogenizing beam coupler reduces the numerical aperture of the UV beam of the UV LED by at least 10%.
Regarding dependent claim 10, Platt in view of Werley and Raksi discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 9, and Raksi further teaches wherein: the homogenizing beam coupler reduces the numerical aperture of the UV beam of the UV LED by at least 20% (Raksi teaches the numerical aperture NA can be adjusted from a first value when a corneal procedure is performed to a second value when a lens procedure is performed, where the first value is in the range of 0.2-0.5 and the second value is in the range of 0.1-0.3, col. 3 lines 54-59, and a change from NA of 0.5 to 0.3 is a reduction of 40%).
Regarding dependent claim 11, Platt in view of Werley discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 8, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein: the homogenizing beam coupler reduces the numerical aperture of the UV beam of the UV LED so that the numerical aperture of the homogenized beam is in a range of 0.35-0.5 (Platt is silent as to any reduction of numerical aperture, and Werley teaches the reduction of the numerical aperture, but does not specify or suggest a reduction to range of 0.35-0.5).
In a related field of invention, Raksi discloses an ophthalmic laser system (refer to at least title and abstract), shown in at least Fig. 1, wherein the numerical aperture NA can be adjusted to a sequence of numerical apertures NA(z) at a sequence of Z focal depths to reduce a representative total aberration by at least a P(scan) percentage relative to analogous laser systems (col. 3, lines 39-44). Raksi further teaches the numerical aperture NA can be adjusted from a first value when a corneal procedure is performed to a second value when a lens procedure is performed, where the first value is in the range of 0.2-0.5 and the second value is in the range of 0.1-0.3 (col. 3 lines 54-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Raksi to the disclosure of Platt and included an adjustable mechanism for the numerical aperture of the numerical aperture of the UV LED disclosed by Platt, because Raksi teaches the numerical aperture NA is adjustable to reduce, at a Z focal depth, the total aberration of the optical system (Raksi, col. 2 lines 37-39) and Raksi further teaches the numerical aperture is optimized
to focus a laser beam to a specific operating depth (Raksi, col. 6, lines 5-7). As such the prior art combination of Platt in view of Werley and Raksi teaches that the numerical aperture of the homogenized beam is in a range of 0.35-0.5.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt in view of Werley as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Li US PGPub 2004/0047053 A1 (hereinafter, “Li”).
Regarding dependent claim 12, Platt in view of Werley discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 8, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein: the homogenizing beam coupler is tapered distally outward to reduce the numerical aperture of the homogenized beam (Platt and Werley are silent as to any tapering to reduce numerical aperture).
In the same field of invention, Li discloses a condensing and collecting optical system (refer to at least abstract) and teaches when the optical collection and condensing systems are applied to applications for illuminations or projection of an image, there is a need to homogenize the output intensity profile at the target such that the output is more uniform (par. [0039]), and Li further teaches that, depending on the output requirement in terms of numerical aperture and size, the homogenizer can be tapered from smaller to larger sizes or vice versa (par. [0041]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Li to the disclosure of Platt and tapered the homogenizing beam coupler equivalent disclosed by Platt in the UV light delivery device, because Li teaches tapering the homogenizer allows changes in the shape of the output of the illumination (Li, par. [0041]).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt as applied to claim 1 above in view of Hudnut et al. US 2025/0093566 A1 (hereinafter, “Hudnut”).
Regarding dependent claim 15, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, but does not specifically disclose wherein: a power loss of the homogenizing beam coupler, defined from a ratio of an optical power of the homogenized beam over the optical power of the received UV beam is less than 20% (Platt is silent as to power loss, and does not teach or suggest a power loss of less than 20%).
In a related field of invention, Hudnut discloses light source bank 1002 coupled to light pipe 110 as shown in at least Fig. 5A, and Hudnut teaches with use of the surface coupling depicted in Fig. 5A, coupling efficiency specifying the efficiency of LED light transmission through light pipe 110 of 90 percent or greater can be achieved (par. [0104]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Hudnut to the disclosure of Platt and modified the homogenizing beam coupler equivalent of Platt to have an efficiency of 90% or greater, as taught by Hudnut, because Hudnut teaches coupling efficiency is dependent on the numerical aperture of the lens (Hudnut, par. [0104]), and as such the prior art combination teaches a power loss less than 20% by teaching a power efficiency greater than 90%.
Regarding dependent claim 16, Platt in view of Hudnut discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 15, and Hudnut further discloses wherein: the power loss is less than 10% (Hudnut discloses coupling efficiency of LED light transmission through light pipe 110 of up to 98%, par. [0104]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt as applied to claim 1 above in view of Kuo et al. US PGPub 2021/0271055 A1 (hereinafter, “Kuo”).
Regarding dependent claim 17, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein: an entry port of the homogenizing beam coupler is covered with an anti-reflection coating (Platt does not disclose, teach, or suggest the inclusion of an anti-reflection coating in the homogenizing beam coupler equivalent).
In the same field of invention, Kuo discloses a waveguide display 100a, shown in at least Fig. 3, with anti-reflection device 170, where the anti-reflection device 170 may be an anti-reflection coating on the optical coupling entrance (par. [0041).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Kuo to the disclosure of Platt, and included an anti-reflection coating on the entrance to the homogenizing beam coupler equivalent of Platt, because Kuo teaches the anti-reflection is configured to allow the image beam to enter the waveguide device easily, so a ratio of reflection by the surface of the waveguide device is decreased (Kuo, par. [0041]).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt as applied to claim 1 above in view of Raksi.
Regarding dependent claim 18, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein: the illumination optics is configured such that the numerical aperture of the output illumination beam is reduced relative to the numerical aperture of the input homogenized beam by at least 20% (Platt is silent as to the size of the numerical aperture of the imaging system disclosed therein, and therefore does not disclose or suggest the reduction by at least 20% of the numerical aperture by the homogenizing beam coupler equivalent).
In a related field of invention, Raksi discloses an ophthalmic laser system (refer to at least title and abstract), shown in at least Fig. 1, wherein the numerical aperture NA can be adjusted to a sequence of numerical apertures NA(z) at a sequence of Z focal depths to reduce a representative total aberration by at least a P(scan) percentage relative to analogous laser systems (col. 3, lines 39-44). Raksi further teaches the numerical aperture NA can be adjusted from a first value when a corneal procedure is performed to a second value when a lens procedure is performed, where the first value is in the range of 0.2-0.5 and the second value is in the range of 0.1-0.3 (col. 3 lines 54-59), and a change from NA of 0.5 to 0.3 is a reduction of 40%.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Raksi to the disclosure of Platt and included an adjustable mechanism for the numerical aperture of the output beam of the UV LED disclosed by Platt, because Raksi teaches the numerical aperture NA is adjustable to reduce, at a Z focal depth, the total aberration of the optical system (Raksi, col. 2 lines 37-39) and Raksi further teaches the numerical aperture is optimized to focus a laser beam to a specific operating depth (Raksi, col. 6, lines 5-7). As such the prior art combination of Platt in view of Raksi teaches the homogenizing beam coupler reduces the numerical aperture of the output UV beam of the UV LED by at least 20%.
Regarding dependent claim 19, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein: the illumination optics is configured to output the illumination beam with a numerical aperture in a range of 0.15-0.30 (Platt is silent as to the numerical aperture values for the optical system disclosed therein).
In a related field of invention, Raksi discloses an ophthalmic laser system (refer to at least title and abstract), shown in at least Fig. 1, wherein the numerical aperture NA can be adjusted to a sequence of numerical apertures NA(z) at a sequence of Z focal depths to reduce a representative total aberration by at least a P(scan) percentage relative to analogous laser systems (col. 3, lines 39-44). Raksi further teaches the numerical aperture NA can be adjusted from a first value when a corneal procedure is performed to a second value when a lens procedure is performed, where the first value is in the range of 0.2-0.5 and the second value is in the range of 0.1-0.3 (col. 3 lines 54-59).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Raksi to the disclosure of Platt and included an adjustable mechanism for the numerical aperture of the output beam of the UV LED disclosed by Platt, because Raksi teaches the numerical aperture NA is adjustable to reduce, at a Z focal depth, the total aberration of the optical system (Raksi, col. 2 lines 37-39) and Raksi further teaches the numerical aperture is optimized to focus a laser beam to a specific operating depth (Raksi, col. 6, lines 5-7). As such the prior art combination of Platt in view of Raksi teaches the homogenizing beam coupler can output the illumination beam with a numerical aperture in a range of 0.15-0.30.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt as applied to claim 20 above in view of Owa et al. US PGPub 2009/0115990 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 05/14/2026, hereinafter, “Owa”) and Maeda et al. US PGPub 2018/0196242 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 05/14/2026, hereinafter, “Maeda”).
Regarding dependent claim 21, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 20, but Platt does not disclose the spatial light modulator comprising: an illumination prism, to redirect the illumination beam toward the digital light reflector array with a total internal reflection at a diagonal illumination side; and
a complementary projection prism, with a diagonal projection side, separated from the diagonal illumination side of the illumination prism by an airgap, to receive the modulated beam from the digital light reflector array through the airgap, and to forward it towards the projection optics (Platt does not disclose the inclusion of prisms in the optical system).
In a related field of invention, Owa discloses an illumination optical system (refer to at least title and abstract), shown in at least Fig. 1 depicting projection exposure apparatus 100 (par. [0029]), with prism 12 in the optical path for illumination as described in par. [0035]. Owa discloses a spatial light modulator 13 is arranged near the prism 12 (par. [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Owa to the disclosure of Platt and incorporated the illumination prism with a diagonal illumination side as taught by Owa because the angle of the illumination light in the two perpendicular directions reflected by each mirror element and emitted from the prism with respect to the optical axis can be controlled by controlling the inclination angle of each mirror element about the two axes (Owa, pars. [0035-38]).
The prior art combination of Platt in view of Owa does not disclose a complementary projection prism, with a diagonal projection side, separated from the diagonal illumination side of the illumination prism by an airgap, to receive the modulated beam from the digital light reflector array through the airgap, and to forward it towards the projection optics.
In the same field of invention, Maeda in at least Fig. 8 illustrates compound angle prism 132 that forms a complementary projection prism with an airgap 144 between the additional illumination prism 130 and forwards the beam to the projection optics (pars. [0051], [0056]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Maeda to the disclosure of Platt and modified the UV light delivery device and imaging system of Platt in view of Owa to incorporate the airgap between an additional complementary projection prism as taught by Maeda because it eliminates the need for any axial rotation of the laser and light guide, eliminates the need for lateral space, and enables side-by-side module stacking (Maeda, par. [0045]).
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt as applied to claim 1 above in view of Zhou et al. US PGPub 2015/0289760 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 12/09/2025, hereinafter, “Zhou).
Regarding dependent claim 22, Platt discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein: the projection optics is a 4f projection system, or an approximate 4f projection system (Platt is silent as to the focal lengths and/or spacings between elements of the device disclosed).
In the same field of invention, Zhou discloses a large dynamic range wavefront sensor system (refer to at least title and abstract), and Fig. 1 shows an example schematic diagram of an embodiment of a sequential wavefront sensor 100 that utilizes a 4-F relay system (par. [0029]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Zhou to the disclosure of Platt and modified the UV light delivery device and imaging system of Platt to incorporate the 4-F projection system as taught by Zhou because it will preserve the phase information of the incident wavefront while allowing it to be relayed without detrimental propagation effects (Zhou, par. [0028]).
Regarding dependent claim 23, the prior art combination of Platt in view of Zhou discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 22 and Zhou further discloses wherein: the illumination optics is a 4f projection system, or an approximate 4f projection system (Zhou teaches a 4-F relay system, par. [0029], and further teaches a 4-F relay system will preserve the phase information of the incident wavefront while allowing it to be relayed without detrimental propagation effects, par. [0029]).
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Platt in view of Zhou as applied to claim 23, and further in view of Sheng et al. US PGPub 2023/0236420 A1 (of record, see IDS dated 05/14/2026, hereinafter, “Sheng”).
Regarding dependent claim 24, Platt in view of Zhou discloses the compact UV light delivery device of claim 23, but the prior art combination does not disclose wherein: an optical path length from an entrance of the homogenizing beam coupler to a distalmost surface of the objective is less than 450 mm (Platt and Zhou are both silent as to optical path lengths for the optical systems disclosed therein).
In the same field of invention, Sheng discloses optical waveguide coupler 1200, shown in at least Fig. 11, with dimensions of 2 mm to 20 mm (par. [0076]), and further discloses optical waveguide coupler 1400, shown in at least Fig. 13, with dimensions between 5 mm to 10 mm (par. [0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have applied the teachings of Sheng to the disclosure of Platt, in view of Zhou, and modified the UV light delivery device and imaging system of Platt and Zhou to incorporate the optical path length as taught by Sheng because such dimensions can allow placing the one or more light sources and the near eye display engine, which are optically coupled by the optical waveguide coupler, in close proximity (e.g., within few tens of millimeters or few centimeters) in the near eye display or a wearable device (Sheng, [0086]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Justin W Hustoft whose telephone number is (571)272-4519. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Ricky L Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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.
/JUSTIN W. HUSTOFT/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/RICKY L MACK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
