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 .
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 1-3, 5, 10, 12, 13, 17-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3, 8, 11, 13-14, 17-19 of copending Application No. 19/044,692 hereafter 692’, in view of Arnoldussen et al. (US 2007/0173792 A1), hereafter Arnoldussen.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, 692’ claims An ophthalmic laser system, comprising: a laser system configured to:, [claim 1, lines 1-2]
access a planned test pattern of one or more planned laser spots; [claim 1, line 3]
and direct a laser beam towards a test target located at a target plane according to the planned test pattern to yield an actual test pattern of one or more actual laser spots on the test target, the one or more actual laser spots corresponding to the one or more planned laser spots, the laser system comprising: [claim 1, lines 5-8]
a laser source configured to generate the laser beam, [claim 1, line 9]; and
a scanner configured to guide the laser beam towards the test target, [claim 1, lines 10-11];
an imaging system comprising one or more digital cameras configured to generate a digital image of the actual test pattern of the one or more actual laser spots, [claim 1, lines 12-13]; and
a computer configured to analyze the digital image to: compare the actual test pattern to the planned test pattern; detect one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern; identify one or more issues indicated by the one or more deviations; and provide output in response to the one or more issues, [claim 1, lines 14-19].
692 do not clearly claim a scanner, compare the actual test pattern to the planned test pattern; detect one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern.
However, Arnoldussen teaches a scanner, compare the actual test pattern to the planned test pattern, [0032];; detect one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern (“FIG. 2C, test pattern 280 is shown as deviating from intended pattern 270. Typically, this deviation is due to one or more beam system characteristics of beam delivery system 260, which may include alignment parameters or optical parameters, such as a lateral redirecting characteristic”, [0033]);
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to claim 692’ does not claim a scanner, compare the actual test pattern to the planned test pattern; detect one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern in order to provide enhanced qualification and calibration accuracy and precision without significantly increasing the overall system cost and complexity and may be applied to a variety of laser systems, [0009].
Instant application
Copending application 19/044,692
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 5
Claim 11
Claim 10
Claim 8
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 13
Claim 14
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 19
Claims 1-3 and 12-18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 14-20 of copending Application No. 19/044,694 hereafter 694’, in view of Arnoldussen et al. (US 2007/0173792 A1), hereafter Arnoldussen.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Regarding claim 1, 694’ claims An ophthalmic laser system, comprising, [Claim 1, line 1];:
a laser system configured to, [Claim 1, line 9];:
an imaging system comprising one or more digital cameras configured to generate a digital image of the actual test pattern of the one or more actual laser spots, [Claim 1, lines 13-14]; and
a computer configured to analyze the digital image to: compare the actual test pattern to the planned test pattern; detect one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern; identify one or more issues indicated by the one or more deviations; and provide output in response to the one or more issues, [Claim 1, lines 15-19].
Even though 694’ claim a similar direct laser beam system , [claim 1, lines 10-12] do not clearly teaches access a planned test pattern of one or more planned laser spots; and direct a laser beam towards a test target located at a target plane according to the planned test pattern to yield an actual test pattern of one or more actual laser spots on the test target, the one or more actual laser spots corresponding to the one or more planned laser spots, the laser system comprising: a laser source configured to generate the laser beam; and a scanner configured to guide the laser beam towards the test target.
However, Arnoldussen teaches access a planned test pattern of one or more planned laser spots (Fig. 2B element 270 “intended pattern 270”, [0032]); and direct a laser beam towards a test target located at a target plane (Figs. 2B-D element 240) according to the planned test pattern (270) to yield an actual test pattern (Fig. 2C element 280) of one or more actual laser spots (Fig. 2C elements 282) on the test target (240), the one or more actual laser spots corresponding to the one or more planned laser spots (element 260 deliver laser beam towards element 240 generating test pattern 280 and laser spots 280 according to intended pattern 270, [0032]), the laser system comprising: a laser source (Fig. 1A element 12, [0014] and/or Fig. 1E element 104’, [0030]) configured to generate the laser beam, [0022]; and a scanner (Fig. 1E element 119’, [0030], Fig. 2B-C element 260, [0032]) configured to guide the laser beam towards the test target, [0033]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to claim 692’ does not claim access a planned test pattern of one or more planned laser spots; and direct a laser beam towards a test target located at a target plane according to the planned test pattern to yield an actual test pattern of one or more actual laser spots on the test target, the one or more actual laser spots corresponding to the one or more planned laser spots, the laser system comprising: a laser source configured to generate the laser beam; and a scanner configured to guide the laser beam towards the test target. in order to provide enhanced qualification and calibration accuracy and precision without significantly increasing the overall system cost and complexity and may be applied to a variety of laser systems, [0009].
Regarding claim 14, 694’ claims wherein the computer is configured to provide the output in response to the one or more issues by: calculating a correction to remove a deviation of the one or more deviations; and generating a command to instruct the scanner to implement the correction, [Claim 15].
Even though 694’ claims generating a command to instruct the laser system to implement the correction, [claim 16], do not clearly teach generating a command to instruct the scanner to implement the correction.
However, Arnoldussen teaches generating a command to instruct the scanner (Fig. 1E element 119’, [0030], Fig. 2B-C element 260, [0032]) to implement the correction, [0059-0060].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling day of the claimed invention to claim 692’ does not claim generating a command to instruct the scanner to implement the correction, in order to provide enhanced qualification and calibration accuracy and precision without significantly increasing the overall system cost and complexity and may be applied to a variety of laser systems, [0009].
Instant application
Copending application 19/044,694
Claim 2
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 3
Claim 12
Claim 14
Claim 13
Claim 15
Claim 16
Claim 17
Claim 17
Claim 18
Claim 18
Claim 20
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.
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.
Claims 1, 4-9, 13-16 and 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Arnoldussen et al. (US 2007/0173792 A1, included in IDS on 07/11/2025), hereafter Arnoldussen.
Regarding claim 1, Arnoldussen teaches an ophthalmic laser system (Figs. 1A-E, [0022]), comprising:
a laser system (Figs. 1A element 10, [0022] and/or Fig. 1E element 160’, [0030]) configured to:
access a planned test pattern of one or more planned laser spots (Fig. 2B element 270 “intended pattern 270”, [0032]); and
direct a laser beam towards a test target located at a target plane (Figs. 2B-D element 240) according to the planned test pattern (270) to yield an actual test pattern (Fig. 2C element 280) of one or more actual laser spots (Fig. 2C elements 282) on the test target (240), the one or more actual laser spots corresponding to the one or more planned laser spots (element 260 deliver laser beam towards element 240 generating test pattern 280 and laser spots 280 according to intended pattern 270, [0032]), the laser system comprising:
a laser source (Fig. 1A element 12, [0014] and/or Fig. 1E element 104’, [0030]) configured to generate the laser beam, [0022]; and
a scanner (Fig. 1E element 119’, [0030], Fig. 2B-C element 260, [0032]) configured to guide the laser beam towards the test target, [0033]
an imaging system (Fig. 1A element 50 and/or Fig. 2A-D element 250, [0027, 0031]) comprising one or more digital cameras configured to generate a digital image of the actual test pattern of the one or more actual laser spots, [0035]; and
a computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0022, 0030]) configured to analyze the digital image , [0033, 0035] to:
compare the actual test pattern (280) to the planned test pattern (270), [0032]; detect one or more deviations of the actual test pattern (280) from the planned test pattern (270), (“FIG. 2C, test pattern 280 is shown as deviating from intended pattern 270. Typically, this deviation is due to one or more beam system characteristics of beam delivery system 260, which may include alignment parameters or optical parameters, such as a lateral redirecting characteristic”, [0033]); identify one or more issues indicated by the one or more deviations, (“In some embodiments, alignment parameters may include rotational offset, axial deflection offset, tilt, or other warping factors associated with beam delivery system 260. In related embodiments, optical parameters may include mirror thickness offset or pincushion effect. In some embodiments, such beam system characteristics can be referred to as beam positional or placement parameters.”, [0033], "rotational offset" [0043-0044], "axial deflection offset" [0045-0048], "pincushion error" in [0049-0050],"alignment errors" [0051-0052], "rotation-induced laser induced wobble" [0062]); ; and provide output in response to the one or more issues, [0035, 0059].
Regarding claim 4, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, wherein: the planned laser spots (Figs. 2C and 2H element 270) are arranged along a first planned axis (x axis) orthogonal to a second planned axis (y axis), as shown in Figs 2C and 2H, [0032-0033]); the actual laser spots (Figs. 2C and 2H element 280) are arranged along a first actual axis and a second actual axis [0032-0033]); and the one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern comprise: the first actual axis is not orthogonal to the second actual axis, (“Fig. 2H shows a test pattern 280h axially offset from an intended pattern 270h on a test surface 240h”, [0047]).
Regarding claim 5, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 4, wherein the one or more issues indicated by the one or more deviations comprise: the scanner (260) is misaligned, [0033, 0052]; or the laser beam and the target plane are misaligned, [0046-0047].
Regarding claim 6, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, wherein: the planned laser spots comprise a first planned laser spot (Fig. 2I element 270i) at a planned spot separation from a second planned laser spot (linear offset, represented as L in Fig. 2J, [0048]) ; the actual laser spots (Fig. 2I element 280i) comprise a first actual laser spot at an actual spot separation from a second actual laser spot, (as shown in Fig. 2J element NL, [0048]); and the computer is configured to detect the one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern by: determining whether the actual spot separation is the same as the planned spot separation, (as shown in Fig. 2J, [0048]).
Regarding claim 7, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 6, wherein the one or more issues indicated by the one or more deviations comprise: the scanner (260) cannot properly guide the laser beam to yield the planned spot separation, [0047-0048].
Regarding claim 8, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, wherein: the planned test pattern has a planned geometric shape (Fig. 2K-L elements 270k and 270L); the actual test pattern (Fig. 2K-L element 280k and 280L); has an actual geometric shape; and the computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0022, 0030]) is configured to detect the one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern by: determining whether the actual geometric shape is the same as the planned geometric shape, (Figs 2K and 2L shows pincushion error and offset “geometric shape distortion” from intended patterns 270k and 270l, and test patterns 280k and 280l, on test surfaces 240k and 240l, [0050]).
Regarding claim 9, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 8, wherein the one or more issues indicated by the one or more deviations comprise one or more of the following: the laser beam and the target plane are misaligned; or the scanner (260) is misaligned, [0050].
Regarding claim 13, Arnoldussen teaches ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, wherein the computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0032]) is configured to provide the output in response to the one or more issues by: sending a command to the laser system that addresses at least one issue of the one or more issues, [0035, 0059].
Regarding claim 14, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, wherein the computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0030]) is configured to provide the output in response to the one or more issues by: calculating a correction to remove a deviation of the one or more deviations, [0032, 0035]; and generating a command to instruct the scanner (Fig. 1E element 119’, [0030], Fig. 2B-C element 260, [0032]) to implement the correction, [0059-0060].
Regarding claim 15, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, wherein: the one or more issues indicated by the one or more deviations comprises: the scanner is guiding the laser beam with a distance error, [0036, 0045]; and the output in response to the one or more issues comprises: a command that adjusts the scanner (Fig. 1E element 119’, [0030], Fig. 2B-C element 260, [0032]) to remove the distance error, [0042, 0058].
Regarding claim 16, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, the imaging system comprising a digital microscope, [0021, 0027].
Regarding claim 19, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, wherein the computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0022, 0030]) is further configured to instruct the laser system (Figs. 1A element 10, [0022] and/or Fig. 1E element 160’, [0030])by sending a command to the laser system, [0032, 0036, 0059].
Regarding claim 20, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 19, wherein the computer is further configured to instruct the laser system (Figs. 1A element 10, [0022] and/or Fig. 1E element 160’, [0030]) to: direct the laser beam towards the test target located at the target plane according to the planned test pattern, [0032, 0036, 0059].
Regarding claim 21, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 19, wherein the computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0022, 0030]) is further configured to instruct the laser system (Figs. 1A element 10, [0022] and/or Fig. 1E element 160’, [0030]) to control the laser source (Fig. 1A element 12, [0014] and/or Fig. 1E element 104’, [0030]) to generate the laser beam, [0032, 0036, 0059].
Regarding claim 22, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 19, wherein the computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0022, 0030]) is further configured to instruct the laser system (Figs. 1A element 10, [0022] and/or Fig. 1E element 160’, [0030]) to control the scanner (Fig. 1E element 119’, [0030], Fig. 2B-C element 260, [0032]) to implement a correction to remove a deviation of the one or more deviations, [0032, 0036, 0059].
Regarding claim 23, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1, wherein the computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0022, 0030]) is coupled to the laser system via one or more connections, a connection of the one or more connections comprising a wired, wireless, or telecommunication network connection, [0024].
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.
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 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 2-3, 10-11 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnoldussen, in view of Deruyck et al. (US 2020/0324465 A1, included in IDS on 07/11/2025), hereafter Deruyck.
Regarding claim 2, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1.
Even though Arnoldussen teaches the computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0022, 0030]) is configured to analyze the digital image [0033, 0035], Arnoldussen is silent about determining a plurality of grayscale values of a plurality of pixels of the digital image; identifying a subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots; and ascertaining the actual test pattern according to the subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots.
However, Deruyck related to computer calibration of laser system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the computer (Fig. 4 element 434) is configured to analyze the digital image (“greyscale image “, [0072]) by: determining a plurality of grayscale values of a plurality of pixels of the digital image, (as shown in Fig. 8 elements 805 + 807); identifying a subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots, (as shown in Fig. 8 elements 805 + 807), (“the computer control system may detect a peak in intensity in graph 807 at a position (subpixel accurate position (808) in the single spoke intensity profile 805). The computer control system may plot each peak in a polar plot, representing the angles of the spokes and the subpixel accurate position (808) where the peak intensity was observed. A circle may be fitted to the polar plot (circle fit (809)). The control computer 434 may detect in the circle fit (809) a new center, i.e., a subpixel accurate estimation of the circle's center (810)” [0054, 0072]; and ascertaining the actual test pattern according to the subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots, ( Fig. 8 element 809), [0072-0073].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arnoldussen by including determining a plurality of grayscale values of a plurality of pixels of the digital image; identifying a subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots; and ascertaining the actual test pattern according to the subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots (as taught by Deruyck) for several advantages such as: allowing to obtains an error function based on differences between coordinate positions in digital image as compared with predefined locations, wherein the error function is used to correct the deviation observed in the digital image and compute true coordinate positions for the reference markings, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0077-0078], Deruyck).
Regarding claim 3, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1.
Arnoldussen is silent about wherein the computer is configured to analyze the digital image by: ascertaining a dimension present in the actual test pattern according to a mathematical relationship between length and a number of a plurality of pixels of the digital image.
Deruyck further teaches the computer (Fig. 4 element 434) is configured to analyze the digital image by: ascertaining a dimension present in the actual test pattern, [0072, 0076] according to a mathematical relationship between length and a number of a plurality of pixels of the digital image (image resolution), [0061-0062].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arnoldussen by including wherein the computer is configured to analyze the digital image by: ascertaining a dimension present in the actual test pattern according to a mathematical relationship between length and a number of a plurality of pixels of the digital image (as taught by Deruyck) for several advantages such as: allowing to obtains an error function based on differences between coordinate positions in digital image as compared with predefined locations, wherein the error function is used to correct the deviation observed in the digital image and compute true coordinate positions for the reference markings, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0077-0078], Deruyck).
Regarding claim 10, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1.
Arnoldussen is silent about wherein: a planned laser spot of the planned test pattern has a planned sharpness; an actual laser spot of the actual test pattern has an actual sharpness; and the computer is configured to detect the one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern by: determining whether the actual sharpness satisfies the planned sharpness.
However, Deruyck further teaches wherein: a planned laser spot of the planned test pattern has a planned sharpness; an actual laser spot of the actual test pattern has an actual sharpness [0072-0073]; and the computer is configured to detect the one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern by: determining whether the actual sharpness satisfies the planned sharpness. , [0072-0073].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arnoldussen by including wherein: a planned laser spot of the planned test pattern has a planned sharpness; an actual laser spot of the actual test pattern has an actual sharpness; and the computer is configured to detect the one or more deviations of the actual test pattern from the planned test pattern by: determining whether the actual sharpness satisfies the planned sharpness (as taught by Deruyck) for several advantages such as: allowing to obtains an error function based on differences between coordinate positions in digital image as compared with predefined locations, wherein the error function is used to correct the deviation observed in the digital image and compute true coordinate positions for the reference markings, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0077-0078], Deruyck).
Regarding claim 11, Arnoldussen in the combination outlined above teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 10.
Arnoldussen further teaches wherein the one or more issues indicated by the one or more deviations comprise one or more of the following: the system is experiencing an unwanted vibration; or the laser system cannot properly focus the laser beam, [0036].
Regarding claim 24, Arnoldussen teaches an ophthalmic laser system (Figs. 1A-E, [0022]), comprising:
a laser system (Figs. 1A element 10, [0022] and/or Fig. 1E element 160’, [0030]) configured to:
access a planned test pattern of one or more planned laser spots (Fig. 2B element 270 “intended pattern 270”, [0032]);; and
direct a laser beam towards a test target located at a target plane (Figs. 2B-D element 240) according to the planned test pattern (270) to yield an actual test pattern (Fig. 2C element 280) of one or more actual laser spots (Fig. 2C elements 282) on the test target (240), the one or more actual laser spots corresponding to the one or more planned laser spots (element 260 deliver laser beam towards element 240 generating test pattern 280 and laser spots 280 according to intended pattern 270, [0032]), the laser system comprising:
a laser source (Fig. 1A element 12, [0014] and/or Fig. 1E element 104’, [0030]) configured to generate the laser beam, [0022]; and
a scanner (Fig. 1E element 119’, [0030], Fig. 2B-C element 260, [0032]) configured to guide the laser beam towards the test target, [0033]
an imaging system (Fig. 1A element 50 and/or Fig. 2A-D element 250, [0027, 0031]) comprising one or more digital cameras configured to generate a digital image of the actual test pattern of the one or more actual laser spots, [0035]; and
a computer (Fig. 1A element 22, [0022, 0030]) configured to analyze the digital image , [0033, 0035] to:
compare the actual test pattern (280) to the planned test pattern (270), [0032]; detect one or more deviations of the actual test pattern (280) from the planned test pattern (270), (“FIG. 2C, test pattern 280 is shown as deviating from intended pattern 270. Typically, this deviation is due to one or more beam system characteristics of beam delivery system 260, which may include alignment parameters or optical parameters, such as a lateral redirecting characteristic”, [0033]); and
send a command to the scanner (Fig. 1E element 119’, [0030], Fig. 2B-C element 260, [0032, 0035]) to address the deviation, [0059-0060].
Arnoldussen fail to teach determine a plurality of grayscale values of a plurality of pixels of the digital image; identify a subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots; ascertain the actual test pattern according to the subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots; ascertain an actual dimension present in the actual test pattern according to a mathematical relationship between length and a number of the plurality of pixels.
However, Deruyck related to computer calibration of laser system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the computer (Fig. 4 element 434) is configured to determining a plurality of grayscale values of a plurality of pixels of the digital image, (as shown in Fig. 8 elements 805 + 807); identifying a subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots, (as shown in Fig. 8 elements 805 + 807), (“the computer control system may detect a peak in intensity in graph 807 at a position (subpixel accurate position (808) in the single spoke intensity profile 805). The computer control system may plot each peak in a polar plot, representing the angles of the spokes and the subpixel accurate position (808) where the peak intensity was observed. A circle may be fitted to the polar plot (circle fit (809)). The control computer 434 may detect in the circle fit (809) a new center, i.e., a subpixel accurate estimation of the circle's center (810)” [0054, 0072]; ascertain an actual dimension present in the actual test pattern [0072, 0076] according to a mathematical relationship between length and a number of the plurality of pixels, (image resolution), [0061-0062].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arnoldussen by including wherein determine a plurality of grayscale values of a plurality of pixels of the digital image; identify a subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots; ascertain the actual test pattern according to the subset of the plurality of grayscale values that represent the one or more actual laser spots; ascertain an actual dimension present in the actual test pattern according to a mathematical relationship between length and a number of the plurality of pixels, (as taught by Deruyck) for several advantages such as: allowing to obtains an error function based on differences between coordinate positions in digital image as compared with predefined locations, wherein the error function is used to correct the deviation observed in the digital image and compute true coordinate positions for the reference markings, thus increase the device accuracy, ([0077-0078], Deruyck).
Regarding claim 25, Arnoldussen in the combination outlined above teaches The ophthalmic laser system of Claim 24,
Arnoldussen further teaches wherein the computer is configured to send the command to the scanner to address the deviation by: calculating a correction to remove the deviation [0032, 0035]; and generating the command to instruct the scanner (Fig. 1E element 119’, [0030], Fig. 2B-C element 260, [0032]) to implement the correction, [0059-0060].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnoldussen, in view of Chernyak et al. (US 7846152 B2), hereafter Chernyak.
Regarding claim 12, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1.
Even though Arnoldussen teaches the computer to determine a problem in the laser system, [0023], Arnoldussen is silent about provide the output in response to the one or more issues by: providing a warning indicating a problem with the laser system.
However, Chernyak related to laser system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches provide the output in response to the one or more issues by: providing a warning indicating a problem with the laser system, [Col. 11, lines 3-17].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arnoldussen by including provide the output in response to the one or more issues by: providing a warning indicating a problem with the laser system (as taught by Chernyak) for several advantages such as: allow the operator to make adjustments to the device, thus increase the device efficiency, ([Col. 11, lines 17-27], Chernyak).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Arnoldussen, in view of Zabar et al. (US 12,038,322 B2), hereafter Zabar.
Regarding claim 17, Arnoldussen teaches the ophthalmic laser system of Claim 1.
Arnoldussen fail to teach the computer further configured to: access a plurality of previous actual test patterns; analyze the plurality of previous actual test patterns; and detect a trend of a previous issue with the laser system in accordance with the plurality of previous actual test patterns.
However, Zabar related to laser system and thus from the same field of endeavor teaches the computer further configured to: access a plurality of previous actual test patterns; analyze the plurality of previous actual test patterns; and detect a trend of a previous issue with the laser system in accordance with the plurality of previous actual test patterns, [col. 14, lines 50-57], [col. 26, lines 36-63].
Therefore, it would been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of Arnoldussen by including the computer further configured to: access a plurality of previous actual test patterns; analyze the plurality of previous actual test patterns; and detect a trend of a previous issue with the laser system in accordance with the plurality of previous actual test patterns (as taught by Zabar) for several advantages such as: the machine learning algorithm provide predictions, thereby improving identification thus increase the device accuracy, ([Col. 27, lines 20-30], Zabar).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under Non-statutory double patenting, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claim 18, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose, teach, or suggest or render obvious “wherein: the one or more digital cameras are configured to generate a digital calibration image of a calibration pattern that shows a known length; and the computer further is configured to: determine a plurality of calibration grayscale values of a plurality of pixels of the digital calibration image; identify a subset of the plurality of calibration grayscale values that represent the known length; and determine a mathematical relationship between the known length and a number of the plurality of pixels according to the subset of the plurality of calibration grayscale values that represent the known length.”, in the combination required by the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raksi et al. (US 2011/0028951 A1), discloses an eye-surgical laser system includes a laser source, to generate a laser beam, an XY scanner, to scan a focal spot of a received laser beam in an XY direction, to pre-compensate an aberration of the laser beam.
Van de Velde et al. (US 2003/0179344 A1), discloses instruments for examining and treating the eye and specifically to a scanning laser ophthalmoscope equipped with external laser sources for the purpose of retinal micro photocoagulation. The overlay frame grabber card, or an external faster card connected to the computer, can perform this task using for example a technique called two-dimensional normalized gray-scale correlation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLOS G PEREZ-GUZMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3904. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/CARLOS PEREZ-GUZMAN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights