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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/03/2025, which incorporates the After Final Amendment filed 18 February 2025, has been entered.
Remarks
This action is in response to the RCE filed 04/03/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8 of Remarks filed 18 February 2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-5, 8-10, 12-15, 17, 17, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1, 12, and 20 have been amended to further clarify the pulse width modulation signal is based on an average power level. Applicant argues that Waisman fails to disclose this limitation. Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made, as explained in the office action 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.
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 1-5, 8-10, 12-15, 17, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waisman et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0072756 – APPLICANT CITED ON IDS), hereinafter Waisman, further in view of Allie et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0202004), hereinafter Allie.
Regarding claims 1, 12, and 20, Waisman discloses a system, method, and non-transitory computer readable medium for a medical laser system (e.g. Abstract) comprising:
at least one laser cavity, a rotating mirror, a user interface (e.g. Par. [0005]: device with 4 laser cavities and rotating mirror 22; Par. [0046]: user interface; Fig. 3A, B: user interface is shown); and
a controller (e.g. Par. [0011]) configured to:
receive, from the user interface, at least one laser parameter associated with a laser pulse output by the system (e.g. Par. [0046]: physician or a user can input pulse parameters such as pulse width, energy level, and frequency);
determine an average power level of the laser pulse based on the at least one laser parameter associated with the laser pulse (e.g. Par. [0046]: energy level can be selected; Fig. 3A, B: power displayed on the user interface);
determine a pulse width modulation (PWM) control signal based on the at least one laser parameter (e.g. Par. [0046]: physician or a user can input pulse parameters such as pulse width to determine control signal, or setting up the pulse width automatically based on parameters, “Alternatively, the physician could select the desired outcome, for example, hemostasis, minimal retropulsion and the system would automatically select the desired parameters, including, the desired pulse width.”); and
generate the laser pulse based on the PWM control signal, the laser pulse comprising at least one of a first shape, a second shape, or a third shape, wherein each of the first shape, the second shape, and the third shape of the laser pulse comprises different pulse widths (e.g. Par. [0048]: pulses are generated based on the earlier input; Par. [0045]: pulse shapes can be short, medium, or long, with each having different pulse widths).
However, Waisman fails to specifically disclose determining an average power level of the pulse based on the at least one parameter associated with the pulse and determining a pulse width modulation signal based on the average power level. Allie, in the field of lasers, is directed towards a gas-discharge laser. Allie discloses it is known to determine an average power level of the pulse based on the at least one parameter associated with the pulse (e.g. Par. [0011]: average power is determined by the duty cycle) and determine a pulse width modulation signal based on the average power level (e.g. Par. [0011]: power control unit varies the duty cycle to generate a pulse width modulation signal).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Waisman to include determining an average power level and determining the pulse width modulation signal based on an average power level as taught by Allie because it is a known form of closed loop control by pulse width modulation (e.g. Allie, par. [0011]: “This form of closed-loop control by pulse-width modulation is well known in the art and broadly applied in a variety of applications.”).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Waisman further discloses wherein the at least one laser parameter comprises at least pulse mode data, pulse repetition frequency data, or pulse energy data associated with the laser pulse (e.g. Par. [0046]: pulse parameters such as pulse width, energy level, and frequency).
Regarding claim 3, Waisman further discloses wherein a pulse width of the second shape is at least 50% greater than a pulse width of the first shape (e.g. Par. [0045]: second shape is 600-700 µs and first shape is 120 to 600 µs, therefore second shape can have pulse width of at least 50% greater than first shape, i.e. first shape is 120 µs and second shape can be 600 µs, which is greater than 50%).
Regarding claim 4, Waisman further discloses wherein a pulse width of the third shape of the laser pulse is at least 2 times greater than a pulse width of the first shape of the laser pulse (e.g. Par. [0045]: third shape is 700-1600 µs and first shape is 120 to 600 µs, therefore third shape can have pulse width of at least 2 times greater than first shape, i.e. first shape is 120 µs and third shape can be 700 µs, which is greater than twice the first shape).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Waisman further discloses wherein a shape of the laser pulse is determined based at least on pulse mode data (e.g. Par. [0046]: pulse mode can be selected which determines pulse shape).
Regarding claim 8, Waisman further discloses wherein the at least one laser cavity comprises four laser cavities (e.g. Par. [0005]: four cavities).
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Waisman further discloses wherein the at least one laser cavity comprises at least two laser cavities (e.g. Par. [0005]); and wherein the controller is further configured to: generate a laser pulse having a repetition frequency of 10 Hertz (Hz) or greater by combining multiple laser pulses generated by the at least two laser cavities, wherein the multiple laser pulses are combined by synchronizing the rotating mirror with the multiple laser pulses generated by the at least laser cavities (e.g. Par. [0005]: rotating mirrors combine the light beams into one output; Par. [0028]: frequency between 5-100 Hz).
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Waisman further discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: generate the laser pulse having the third shape by combining multiple PWM control signals (e.g. Par. [0046]).
Regarding claim 14, Waisman further discloses wherein a pulse width of the second shape is at least 50% greater than a pulse width of the first shape (e.g. Par. [0045]: second shape is 600-700 µs and first shape is 120 to 600 µs, therefore second shape can have pulse width of at least 50% greater than first shape, i.e. first shape is 120 µs and second shape can be 600 µs, which is greater than 50%); and wherein a pulse width of the third shape of the laser pulse is at least 2 times greater than a pulse width of the first shape of the laser pulse (e.g. Par. [0045]: third shape is 700-1600 µs and first shape is 120 to 600 µs, therefore third shape can have pulse width of at least 2 times greater than first shape, i.e. first shape is 120 µs and third shape can be 700 µs, which is greater than twice the first shape).
Claims 6, 11, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waisman et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0072756 – APPLICANT CITED ON IDS), hereinafter Waisman, further in view of Allie et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0202004), hereinafter Allie, as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Camilleri et al. (US Patent 6,661,820, of record), hereinafter Camilleri.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Waisman fails to disclose wherein the average power level of the laser pulse is determined based on a discrete spectrum matrix, and wherein the discrete spectrum matrix comprises parameters based at least on pulse energy data of the laser pulse, repetition frequency data of the laser pulse, sub- pulse frequency of a PWM pulse, pulse profile width data of the PWM pulse, or overall pulse width data of the laser pulse.
Camilleri is directed towards controlling a laser diode. Camilleri discloses wherein the power level of the laser pulse is determined based on a discrete spectrum matrix, and wherein the discrete spectrum matrix comprises parameters based at least on pulse energy data of the laser pulse, repetition frequency data of the laser pulse, sub- pulse frequency of a PWM pulse, pulse profile width data of the PWM pulse, or overall pulse width data of the laser pulse (e.g. Col. 4, line 61 – Col. 5, line 19: matrix to determine power, based on pulse duration and pulse repetition frequency).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Waisman in view of Allie to include determining the power level based on a matrix as taught by Camilleri, because doing so would allow an accurate determination of the power of the laser.
Regarding claims 11 and 19, Waisman further discloses storing data (e.g. Par. [0030]). However, Waisman fails to specifically disclose wherein the controller is further configured to: store one or more discrete spectrum matrices comprising parameters specifying one or more pulse modes of the laser pulse. Camilleri is directed towards controlling a laser diode. Camilleri discloses wherein the controller is further configured to: store one or more discrete spectrum matrices comprising parameters specifying one or more pulse modes of the laser pulse (e.g. Col. 9, lines 49-55: the laser setting are stored).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Waisman in view of Allie to include storing the data as taught by Camilleri because doing so would allow access to the data at a later time.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Waisman et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2019/0072756 – APPLICANT CITED ON IDS), hereinafter Waisman, further in view of Allie et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0202004), hereinafter Allie, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chia et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0325890, of record), hereinafter Chia.
Regarding claim 7, Waisman fails to disclose wherein the at least one laser cavity comprises a holmium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Ho:YAG) rod. Chia, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards surgical laser systems. Chia discloses using a holmium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Ho:YAG) rod (e.g. Par. [0032]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Waisman in view of Allie to include the holmium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Ho:YAG) rod as taught by Chia because doing so would result in a laser generator that can produce the desired laser energy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Heckel et al. (US 2015/0282863) is directed towards electrosurgery and discloses determining an average power level (e.g. par. [0047]).
Gilbert et al. (US 2015/0088118) is directed towards electrosurgical generators and discloses generating a PWM signal based on an average real power (e.g. par. [0036]).
Friedrichs (US 2016/0143685) is directed towards an electrosurgical system and discloses determining an average power level of the pulse (e.g. Par. [0045]: average power level delivered).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/PAMELA M. BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796