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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/22/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues he claims do not recite an abstract idea and also recite a practical application. The Applicant argus the claims recite outputting the at least starting values of the irradiation parameters as control parameters configured to set the irradiation intensity of the treatment laser for subsequent irradiation of the at least one target region. The Applicant states the determined parameters do more than represent a result. They set the intensity at which the laser irradiates the retinal tissue. The examiner respectfully disagrees that the claims do not recite an abstract idea or are integrated into a practical application. The claims recite the abstract idea of determining at least starting values of the irradiation parameters that determine an irradiation intensity using the at least one optical recording. The outputting the at least starting values of the irradiation parameters as control parameters configured to set the irradiation intensity of the treatment laser or generate one or more output control signals representing the initial values, the one or more output control signals configured to set the irradiation intensity of the treatment laser. The examiner notes that output control signals are configured to set the irradiation intensity of the treatment laser, but does not actually control the treatment laser. Therefore, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the control signals are merely output from the processor which represents the initial values which are configured to set the irradiation intensity of the treatment laser. This is different from original claim 12 where the target region is irradiated with the at least starting values which integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding Kaikkonen, Applicant’s arguments are persuasive and the prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process of determining starting values of irradiation parameters of the retina using the optical recordings (e.g. images) and the defined illumination parameter used to illuminate the retina during recording and outputting the at least one starting values. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because a laser/illumination device to illuminate the retina and an optical recording device to obtain an image or recording is a pre-solution activity of data gathering. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a treatment laser/illumination device and an optical recording device are well-understood, routine and conventional. As evidenced Liesfield et al (US Publication 2012/0239015) discloses having a treatment laser device (2) and/or an illuminator (5) and a camera (6) for acquiring images of the eye; Grinvald et al (US Patent 6,478,424) discloses having an imaging illuminator 14 for illumination of the retina and an imaging device (camera) (20) and stimulus illuminator (2); and Chen et al (US Publication 2020/0069463) discloses having an illumination device/ treatment laser (102) and a camera (106). The examiner notes that claim 12 acquiring another image after irradiation of the at least one target region and therefore performs a feedback by obtaining more images and adjusting (continuation) values are obtained and therefore integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chang et al (US Publication 2023/0240893) discloses a feedback mechanism that uses an image acquisition device to receive an image of the retina after it has been illuminated in order to construct a map for irradiation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to William J Levicky whose telephone number is (571)270-3983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)270-5625. 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.
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
