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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/17/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 9, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama, K. et al., WO 2017060956 A1 (hereinafter Takayama), in view of Tagliaferri, M. et al., US 20180236260 A1 (hereinafter Marco), in view of Yamashita, D. et al., US 20100185187 A1 (hereinafter Yamashita), and in further view of Rink, J. L. et al., US 20120232534 A1 (hereinafter Rink).
Regarding claim 1, Takayama teaches an optical fiber state detection system comprising: a laser apparatus (fig. 1 element 14, p. 9 para 3); an optical fiber probe including a reflector (fig. 1 element 28, p. 3 para 3 lines 2-6); an optical fiber (fig. 1 element 24, p. 3 para 3 lines 2-6); and a control part (fig. 1 element 22, p. 3 para 3 lines 6-10), wherein the laser apparatus includes: a first light source that outputs a monitor-related light for monitoring a state of the optical fiber (p. 3 para 1 “white light”), “the first light source being connected to the reflector via the optical fiber and the reflector being configured to reflect the monitor-related light propagated through the optical fiber” (fig. 1 p. 3 para 3); a light receiver that receives a reflected light reflected by the reflector (fig. 1 element 26, p. 3 para 3 lines 2-6); and “a tap coupler provided between the reflector and both the first light source and the light receiver such that the first light source and the light receiver are connected to the tap coupler” (fig. 1 element 18 p. 3 para 3), “the fiber state detection system is a bend detection system which detects a degree of bend in the optical fiber” (p. 3 para 8 last sentence), one single fiber on a side of the laser apparatus (fig. 1 shows a fiber is connected between elements 14 and 18) is coupled to one single fiber on a side of the optical fiber probe (fig. 1 shows another fiber is connected between elements 18 and 12), a wavelength of the monitor-related light is a wavelength in a visible light wavelength bandwidth (p. 3 para 1 “white light”).
Takamaya fails to teach wherein: a core diameter of the optical fiber on a laser apparatus side of the optical fiber is smaller than a core diameter of the optical fiber on an optical fiber probe side of the optical fiber, when the control part detects that a received optical power of the reflected light is greater than 0 and lower than a predetermined threshold value, the control part outputs information on a decrease in the received optical power to outside, the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber, and the optical fiber is configured such that bending sensitivity is increased by the difference in core diameter between the laser apparatus side and the optical fiber probe side.
Marco, from the same field of endeavor as Takamaya, teaches wherein: a core diameter of the optical fiber on a laser apparatus side of the optical fiber is smaller (Fig. 1 element 18, claim 5) than a core diameter of the optical fiber on an optical fiber probe side of the optical fiber (Fig. 1 elements 21 and 24, claim 6 and para [0040] lines 1-3), and “the optical fiber is configured such that bending sensitivity is increased by the difference in core diameter between the laser apparatus side and the optical fiber probe side” (replacing Marco’s two optical fibers into Takamaya’s device will result to the limitation “the optical fiber is configured such that bending sensitivity is increased by the difference in core diameter between the laser apparatus side and the optical fiber probe side”; increasing the fiber core will increase the bending sensitivity, see evidentiary reference EP 2116879 A2, p. 5 para 5)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Marco to Takamaya to have wherein: a core diameter of the optical fiber on a laser apparatus side of the optical fiber is smaller than a core diameter of the optical fiber on an optical fiber probe side of the optical fiber, and the optical fiber is configured such that bending sensitivity is increased by the difference in core diameter between the laser apparatus side and the optical fiber probe side in order to increase the bending sensitivity of the of the device (see evidentiary reference EP 2116879 A2, p. 5 para 5).
Takamaya, when modified by Marco, does not teach when the control part detects that a received optical power of the reflected light is greater than 0 and lower than a predetermined threshold value, the control part outputs information on a decrease in the received optical power to outside, the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber.
Yamashita, from the same field of endeavor as Takamaya, teaches wherein, when the control part detects that a received optical power of the reflected light (see para [0051] lines 8-10; the reflected light from element 32 is detected by element 60; note that intensity is proportional to power of the reflected light) is greater than 0 and lower (see para [0047] last sentence) than a predetermined threshold value (see para [0047] lines 10-14; the predetermined threshold value corresponds to λb when there is no pressure acting on the optical fiber), the control part outputs information on a decrease in the received optical power to outside (see para [0047] last sentence) and one single fiber on a side of the laser apparatus (this is the fiber on the side of element 30a) is coupled (Fig. 1 connector 31) to one single fiber on a side of the optical fiber probe (Fig. 1 connector 31 connects to the fiber of element 30b). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yamashita to Takamaya, when modified by Marco, to have when the control part detects that a received optical power of the reflected light is greater than 0 and lower than a predetermined threshold value, the control part outputs information on a decrease in the received optical power to outside in order to provide a light irradiation device capable of detecting an irradiation state of the laser light safely and more reliably on irradiation of laser light to an object (para [0006] last sentence).
Takamaya, when modified by Marco and Yamashita, does not teach the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber.
Rink, from the same field of endeavor as Takamaya, teaches a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber (para [0035] lines 1-4). Using the light source of Rink in the device of Takamaya device will teach the limitation “the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber”, in support of JP 3776370 B2, p. 9 para [0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rink to Takamaya, when modified by Marco and Yamashita, to use the light source of Rink to Takamaya device, when modified by Marco and Yamashita, which imply and teach to the limitation “the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber” in order to increase the bending sensitivity of the device from the bending of the fiber (JP 3776370 B2, p. 9 para [0045]).
Regarding claim 9, Takayama fails to teach the system of claim 1, wherein the control part is configured to determine the degree of bend based on a rate of change in the received optical power.
Yamashita, from the same field of endeavor as Takamaya, teaches teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the control part is configured to determine the degree of bend based on a rate of change in the received optical power (para [0047] lines 9-16; the degree of bend based on a rate of change in the received optical power corresponds to the decreased in intensity of ʎb).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yamashita to Takamaya to have the system of claim 1, wherein the control part is configured to determine the degree of bend based on a rate of change in the received optical power in order to determine the bending of the fiber due to pressure (para [0047] lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 12, Takayama fails to teach the system of claim 1, wherein the control part outputs information on the decrease in the received optical power in the form of a warning signal or diagnostic data for user interpretation.
Yamashita, from the same field of endeavor as Takamaya, teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the control part outputs information on the decrease in the received optical power in the form of a warning signal or diagnostic data for user interpretation (para [0053]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yamashita to Takamaya to have the system of claim 1, wherein the control part outputs information on the decrease in the received optical power in the form of a warning signal or diagnostic data for user interpretation in order to detect more reliably the irradiation state of the laser light (para [0015] last sentence).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama, in view of Marco, Yamashita, and Rink, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zabar, Y. et al., US 20170079718 A1 (hereinafter Zabar).
Regarding claim 3, the modified system of Takayama does not teach the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 1, wherein the monitor-related light is a flat top beam.
Zabar, from the same field of endeavor as Takayama, teaches the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 1, wherein the monitor-related light is a flat top beam (see para [0024] line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Zabar to the modified system of Takayama to have the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 1, wherein the monitor-related light is a flat top beam in order to prevent the fiber from damaging (see para [0024] lines 11-12).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama, in view of Rink, and Marco.
Regarding claim 4, Takayama teaches an optical fiber state detection system comprising: a laser apparatus (fig. 1 element 14, p. 9 para 3); an optical fiber probe including a reflector (fig. 1 element 28, p. 3 para 3 lines 2-6); an optical fiber (fig. 1 element 24, p. 3 para 3 lines 2-6); and a control part (fig. 1 element 22, p. 3 para 3 lines 6-10), wherein the laser apparatus includes: a first light source that outputs a monitor-related light for monitoring a state of the optical fiber (p. 3 para 1 “white light”), the first light source being connected to the reflector via the optical fiber and the reflector being configured to reflect and the reflector being configured to reflect the monitor-related light propagated through the optical fiber (fig. 1 p. 3 para 3); a light receiver that receives a reflected light reflected by the reflector (fig. 1 element 26, p. 3 para 3 lines 2-6); a tap coupler provided between the reflector and both the first light source and the light receiver such that the first light source and the light receiver are connected the tap coupler (fig. 1 element 18 p. 3 para 3); the fiber state detection system is a bend detection system which detects a degree of bend in the optical fiber (p. 3 para 8 last sentence), one single fiber on a side of the laser apparatus (fig. 1 shows a fiber is connected between elements 14 and 18) is coupled to one single fiber on a side of the optical fiber probe (fig. 1 shows another fiber is connected between elements 18 and 12), a wavelength of the monitor-related light is a wavelength in a visible light wavelength bandwidth (p. 3 para 1 “white light”).
Takamaya fails to teach a second light source that outputs an ablation-related light; and a wave multiplexer that multiplexes the monitor-related light and the ablation-related light, wherein: the first light source and the second light source are connected to the wave multiplexer, the wave multiplexer and the light receiver are connected to the tap coupler, the monitor-related light and the ablation-related light are different from each other in wavelength, the reflector transmits the ablation-related light, a core diameter of the optical fiber on a laser apparatus side is smaller than a core diameter of the optical fiber on an optical fiber probe side, when the control part detects that a received optical power of the reflected light is greater than 0 and lower than a predetermined threshold value, the control part shuts down the second light source, wherein the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber: and the optical fiber is configured such that bending sensitivity is increased by the difference in core diameter between the laser apparatus side and the optical fiber probe side.
Rink, from the same field of endeavor as Takamaya, teaches a second light source that outputs an ablation-related light (replacing one of elements 30-n of fig. 1 of Takamaya with the light source of Rink as stated in para [0035] lines 1-4); and a wave multiplexer (see Fig. 4A element 448, para [0048] lines 17-21) that multiplexes the monitor-related light (see Fig. 4A, the “aiming beam”emitted by element 448; para [0048] lines 17-21) and the ablation-related light (see Fig. 4A element “From Laser Source 100”, para [0048] lines 17-21), wherein: the first light source and the second light source are connected to the wave multiplexer (this is shown in Fig 4A; the beams of elements 446 and 100 all pass through element 448), the wave multiplexer and the light receiver are connected to the tap coupler (this is shown in Fig. 4A; elements 448 and 420 are connected to element 444), the monitor-related light (see Fig. 4A, element 446 has a wavelength of 532 nm) and the ablation-related light (see Fig. 4A, element 100 has a wavelength greater than 1200 nm) are different from each other in wavelength (see Fig. 4A), the reflector transmits the ablation-related light (Takamaya’s element 28 reflects the ablation-related light), when the control part (see para [0064] lines 17-25) detects that a received optical power of the reflected light is greater than 0 and lower than a predetermined threshold value (this is cited in para [0064] lines 17-25), the control part shuts down the second light source (see para [0064] lines 17-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rink to Takamaya to have a second light source that outputs an ablation-related light; and a wave multiplexer that multiplexes the monitor-related light and the ablation-related light, wherein: the first light source and the second light source are connected to the wave multiplexer, the wave multiplexer and the light receiver are connected to the tap coupler, the monitor-related light and the ablation-related light are different from each other in wavelength, the reflector transmits the ablation-related light and when the control part detects that a received optical power of the reflected light is greater than 0 and lower than a predetermined threshold value, the control part shuts down the second light source in order to provide critical information about the system status of the display within the surgeon's visual field by modulating the aiming beam of the laser treatment system (see para [0064] lines 11-13).
Rink, also, teaches the limitation of “the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber”.
Rink teaches a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber (para [0035] lines 1-4). Using the light source of Rink in the device of Takamaya device will teach the limitation “the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber”, in support of JP 3776370 B2, p. 9 para [0045].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Rink to Takamaya, when modified by Marco and Yamashita, to use the light source of Rink to Takamaya device, when modified by Marco and Yamashita, which imply and teach to the limitation “the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber” in order to increase the bending sensitivity of the device from the bending of the fiber (JP 3776370 B2, p. 9 para [0045]).
Takamaya, when modified by Rink, fails to teach a core diameter of the optical fiber on a laser apparatus side is smaller than a core diameter of the optical fiber on an optical fiber probe side, wherein the visible wavelength of the monitor-related light is configured to provide reduced bending sensitivity relative to a longer wavelength ablation light transmitted by the fiber, and the optical fiber is configured such that bending sensitivity is increased by the difference in core diameter between the laser apparatus side and the optical fiber probe side.
Regarding claim 5, Takayama disclose the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 4, wherein a wavelength of the monitor-related light is a wavelength in a visible light wavelength bandwidth (p. 3 para 1 “white light”).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamashita in view of Takayama, in view of Rink, and Marco, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Zabar, Y. et al., US 20170079718 A1 (hereinafter Zabar).
Regarding claim 6, the modified apparatus of Takayama fails to teach the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 4, wherein the monitor-related light is a flat top beam.
Zabar, from the same field of endeavor as Takayama, teaches the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 4, wherein the monitor-related light is a flat top beam (see para [0024] line 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Zabar to the modified apparatus of Takayama to have the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 1, wherein the monitor-related light is a flat top beam in order to prevent the fiber from damaging (see para [0024] lines 11-12).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama, in view of Rink, and Marco, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rink, J. et al., US 20170354465 A1 (hereinafter JohnR).
Regarding claim 7, the modified apparatus of Takayama does not teach the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 4, wherein the monitor-related light and the ablation-related light are same as each other in beam shape (this limitation pertains to para [0053] of the instant application).
JohnR, from the same field of endeavor as Takayama, teaches the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 4, wherein the monitor-related light (see Fig. 1 element 104, para [0014] lines 6-7) and the ablation-related light (see Fig. 1 element 102, para [0014] lines 6-7) are same as each other in beam shape (elements 106 and 134 make the two beams same shape).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of JohnR to the modified apparatus of Takayama to have the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 4, wherein the monitor-related light and the ablation-related light are same as each other in beam shape in order to increase the accuracy and efficiency of directing the laser into an optical fiber (see para [0001] lines 3-4).
Claim(s) 8, 13, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takayama, in view of Rink, and Marco, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yamashita.
Regarding claim 8, the modified apparatus of Takayama does not teach the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 4, wherein an ablation-related light cutter that cuts a wavelength of the ablation-related light is provided on a front side of the light receiver.
Yamashita, from the same field of endeavor as Takayama, teaches the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 4, wherein an ablation-related light cutter (see Fig. 1 element 44, para [0049] lines 16-19) that cuts a wavelength of the ablation-related light (none of the light from element 10 is reflected into element 44; see para [0049] lines 16-19) is provided on a front side of the light receiver (this is shown in Fig. 1; see para [0049] lines 16-19; this limitation pertains to para [0061] last sentence of the instant application).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yamashita to the modified apparatus of Takayama to have the optical fiber state detection system according to claim 4, wherein an ablation-related light cutter that cuts a wavelength of the ablation-related light is provided on a front side of the light receiver in order to branch the optical path of the detection light into the optical fiber and into the light detection (para [0049] last sentence).
Regarding claim 13, the modified apparatus of Takayama does not teach the system of claim 4, wherein the control part is configured to determine the degree of bend based on a rate of change in the received optical power.
Yamashita, from the same field of endeavor as Takayama, teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the control part is configured to determine the degree of bend based on a rate of change in the received optical power (para [0047] last sentence; the rate of change corresponds to the decreased in the intensity).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yamashita to the modified apparatus of Takayama to have the system of claim 4, wherein the control part is configured to determine the degree of bend based on a rate of change in the received optical power in order to determine the bending of the fiber due to pressure (para [0047] lines 1-2).
Regarding claim 16, the modified apparatus of Takayama does not teach the system of claim 4, wherein the control part outputs information on the decrease in the received optical power in the form of a warming signal or diagnostic data for user interpretation.
Yamashita, from the same field of endeavor as Takayama, teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the control part outputs information on the decrease in the received optical power in the form of a warming signal or diagnostic data for user interpretation (para [0057] col 2 lines 3-10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Yamashita to the modified apparatus of Takayama to have the system of claim 4, wherein the control part outputs information on the decrease in the received optical power in the form of a warming signal or diagnostic data for user interpretation in order to detect more reliably the irradiation state of the laser light (para [0015] last sentence).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
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.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877