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 on July 22, 2026 with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection have been made in view of applicant’s amendments as can be further seen below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 9,180,051 B2 to Frey et al. (hereinafter “Frey”) in view of US 2016/0302971 A1 to Morley et al. (hereinafter “Morley”) and 6,128,524 to Yoneya.
Regarding claim 1, Frey teaches:
A system configured to create a fragmentation pattern in a crystalline lens of an eye (abstract), comprising:
a laser system configured to direct a laser beam towards the crystalline lens of the eye (see abstract, fig. 2, and col. 7, lines 25-27), the laser system having a z-axis and a plurality of xy-planes orthogonal to the z-axis ( see fig. 2A, col. 8, lines 1-31, 47-49, and 60-65);
and a computer system (see col. 8, lines 20-31) configured to instruct the laser system to:
direct the laser beam toward the crystalline lens to create a star pattern to segment the crystalline lens (see col. 8, lines 20-31, claim 7, and claim 34),
the star pattern at one or more xy-planes of the plurality of xy-planes comprising a star (see fig. 7A and col. 15, lines 14-29), but does not disclose directing a laser beam towards the crystalline lens to create a star pattern of a plurality of photodisruption sites.
However, Morley teaches systems and methods for performing cataracts surgery (see abstract). The system (fig. 2) teaches directing a laser beam towards the crystalline lens to create a pattern of a plurality of photodisruption sites (laser shot patterns to more than one area – see para [0048]-[0049], para [0082], para [0116], and para [0120]-[0121]).
However, Morley does not teach wherein the star comprising an isotoxal star having a central polygon and a plurality of acute vertices,
the central polygon comprising three or more sides, each acute vertex of the plurality of acute vertices forming a triangular area with a respective side of the central polygon to yield a plurality of triangular areas.
However, Yoneya teaches an apparatus for treating a diseased part of an eye fundus (see abstract and figs. 3-4). The system (fig. 3) contains a star comprising an isotoxal star having a central polygon and a plurality of acute vertices,
the central polygon comprising three or more sides, each acute vertex of the plurality of acute vertices forming a triangular area with a respective side of the central polygon to yield a plurality of triangular areas (see fig. 3, annotated fig. 4 below, and col. 6, lines 64-67).
PNG
media_image1.png
478
1230
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Frey with the laser system used to create photodisruption sites as stated in Morley with the star pattern of Yoneya to arrive at the claimed invention. Such combination would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Frey, Morley, and Yoneya teach the utilization of a star pattern to properly fragment the crystalline lens to treat the diseased portion of the eye and preserve the nature tissue of the eye, ultimately preserving patient safety.
Regarding claim 8, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1, containing a star-shaped pattern cut into the lens (see abstract and claim 7), wherein the visual axis through the anterior and posterior position of the eye and lens (see figs. 1-1A, 103 and 104 and col. 1, lines 34-65)and wherein
a shell pattern comprising a shell pattern cross-section disposed at a plane that bisects the shell pattern, the shell pattern cross-section comprising a convex anterior curve and a convex posterior curve (see fig. 13, col. 2, lines 15-26, col. 6, lines 30-32 and lines 40-42, col. 17, lines 10-42, and col. 18, lines 6-22). In addition to the use of shells, the star-shaped lines are cut into the lens. Due to the natural structure of the lens, the cross-section (disposed at a plane that bisects the shell and star-shaped pattern) used for the lens will contain a convex anterior curve and a convex posterior curve at the cross-section.
Regarding claim 12, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1, the laser system configured to direct the laser beam towards the crystalline lens of the eye to form a plurality of photodisruption sites in the crystalline lens of the eye to create the star pattern (see abstract, col. 8, lines 1-12, col. 18, lines 40-64, and claim 7).
Regarding claim 13, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1, wherein the central polygon includes a generally square shape (see annotated fig. 4 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
478
1230
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over to Frey in view Morley and Yoneya, and further in view of US 2014/0114297 A1 to Woodley et al. (hereinafter “Woodley”).
Regarding claim 2, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the central polygon comprising a plurality of parallel central region lines.
However, Woodley teaches a system and method for planning and forming an incision on the crystalline lens nucleus for laser surgery (see abstract, lines 1-4). The system (figs. 1-2) teaches a plurality of parallel central region lines (see fig. 35, 284 and para [0144]-[0150]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Frey containing the central polygon with the grid pattern of Woodley to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Woodley teaches utilizing the parallel lines in order to properly segment and fragment the crystalline lens to properly treat the crystalline lens during laser surgery.
Regarding claim 3, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the central polygon comprises:
a plurality of first parallel central region lines;
and a plurality of second parallel central region lines, the second parallel central region lines substantially orthogonal to the first parallel central region lines.
However, Woodley teaches a system and method for planning and forming an incision on the crystalline lens nucleus for laser surgery (see abstract, lines 1-4). The system (figs. 1-2) teaches a plurality of first parallel central region lines;
and a plurality of second parallel central region lines, the second parallel central region lines substantially orthogonal to the first parallel central region lines (see fig. 35, 284 and para [0144]-[0150]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Frey containing the central polygon with the grid pattern of Woodley to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Woodley teaches utilizing a grid pattern in order to properly segment and fragment the crystalline lens to properly treat the crystalline lens during laser surgery.
Regarding claim 4, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the star pattern comprises one or more chop lines.
However, Woodley teaches wherein a cross pattern comprises one or more chop lines (see annotated fig. 35 below and para [0144]-[0150]).
PNG
media_image3.png
507
1305
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Frey to contain the chop lines of Woodley to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Woodley teaches utilizing the claimed line structure in order to properly segment and fragment the crystalline lens to properly treat the crystalline lens during laser surgery.
Regarding claim 5, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 4, but does not teach wherein a chop line of the one or more chop lines bypasses the star.
However, Woodley teaches wherein a chop line of the one or more chop lines bypasses the cross pattern (see annotated fig. 35 below).
PNG
media_image4.png
498
1287
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Frey to contain the chop lines of Woodley to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Woodley teaches utilizing the claimed line structure in order to properly segment and fragment the crystalline lens to properly treat the crystalline lens during laser surgery.
Regarding claim 6, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 4, but does not teach wherein a chop line of the one or more chop lines passes through the star.
However, Woodley teaches wherein a chop line of the one or more chop lines passes through the cross pattern (see annotated fig. 35 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
507
1305
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Frey to contain the chop lines of Woodley to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Woodley teaches utilizing the claimed line structure in order to properly segment and fragment the crystalline lens to properly treat the crystalline lens during laser surgery.
Regarding claim 7, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the star pattern comprising a first chop line and a second chop line, the first chop line substantially orthogonal to the second chop line.
However, Woodley teaches wherein a first chop line and a second chop line, the first chop line substantially orthogonal to the second chop line (see annotated fig. 35 above and para [0144]-[0150]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Frey to contain the chop lines of Woodley to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Woodley teaches utilizing the claimed line structure in order to properly segment and fragment the crystalline lens to properly treat the crystalline lens during laser surgery.
Regarding claim 9, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1 containing triangular areas (see annotated fig. 4 below), but does not disclose wherein a triangular area of the plurality of triangular areas having one or more parallel triangular area lines.
PNG
media_image5.png
374
1206
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Woodley teaches a system and method for planning and forming an incision on the crystalline lens nucleus for laser surgery (see abstract, lines 1-4). The system (figs. 1-2) teaches one or more parallel area lines (see fig. 35, 284 and para [0144]-[0150]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Frey containing the parallel lines of Woodley to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Woodley teaches utilizing the parallel lines in order to properly segment and fragment the crystalline lens to properly treat the crystalline lens during laser surgery.
Regarding claim 10, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1 containing a plurality of triangular areas (see annotated fig. 4 above), but does not teach wherein a triangular area of the plurality of triangular areas having: a first plurality of parallel triangular area lines;
and a second plurality of parallel triangular area lines, the second plurality of parallel triangular area lines substantially orthogonal to the first plurality of parallel triangular area lines.
However, Woodley teaches a system and method for planning and forming an incision on the crystalline lens nucleus for laser surgery (see abstract, lines 1-4). The system (figs. 1-2) teaches a plurality of first parallel central region lines;
and a plurality of second parallel central region lines, the second parallel central region lines substantially orthogonal to the first parallel central region lines (see fig. 35, 284 and para [0144]-[0150]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified system of Frey containing the grid pattern of Woodley to arrive at the claimed invention. Such modification would lead to a reasonable expectation for success, since the prior art of Woodley teaches utilizing a grid pattern in order to properly segment and fragment the crystalline lens to properly treat the crystalline lens during laser surgery.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frey in view of Morley and Yoneya, and further in view of US 2015/0305942A1 to Kojima et al. (hereinafter “Kojima”).
Regarding claim 11, Frey as modified teaches:
The system of Claim 1 containing a computer system and wherein the system utilizes a star pattern for the laser surgical procedure (see abstract, col. 8, lines 20-23, and claim 7), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the computer system configured to:
display a graphical user interface (GUI)/display, the GUI comprising one or more pattern selectors configured to receive one or more pattern selections; and generate the star pattern according to the one or more pattern selections.
However, Kojima teaches a system for irradiating the crystalline lens of the eye (see abstract and para 0046). The system (fig. 1) teaches wherein the computer system configured to:
display a graphical user interface (GUI), the GUI comprising one or more pattern selectors configured to receive one or more pattern selections; and generate the star pattern according to the one or more pattern selections (see fig. 1- reference number 8, fig. 18, fig. 21, para [0046], and para [0073]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Friedman et al. (US 2011/0196350 A1) teaches a laser system for performing cataracts surgery on an eye (abstract).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KARMEL J WEBSTER whose telephone number is (703)756-5960. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
/K.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights