DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Election/Restrictions
2. Applicant’s election without traverse of group II (claims 13-20) in the reply filed on 15 September 2025 is acknowledged. As a result, group I (claims 1-12) has been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
3. Claims 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 14-20 contain minor typographical and grammatical errors.
Claim 14, line 5: The Examiner suggests changing “approximately an half of the first frequency” to “approximately a half of the first frequency”.
Claim 15, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13” to “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 14”.
Claim 16, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13” to “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 14”.
Claim 17, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13” to “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 14”.
Claim 18, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13” to “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 14”.
Claim 19, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13” to “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 14”.
Claim 20, line 1: The Examiner suggests changing “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13” to “The laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 14”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the first non-linear crystal disk" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the second non-linear crystal disk" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the first beam of photons" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the second beam of photons" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "and photons having a second frequency" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The Examiners respectfully submits that the limitation does not specific which beam of photons (e.g., first, second, third, or fourth beam of photons) have a second frequency.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the waveplate" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the polarization direction of the photons” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the first non-linear crystal disk" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the second non-linear crystal disk" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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.
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.
7. Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Oren et al. (US 2015/0359595 A1) in view of Grace (US 2019/0015157 A1) and Tschida et al. (US 2020/0046429 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Ben Oren teaches a laser tissue ablation apparatus ([abstract]), comprising:
a light processing apparatus producing a laser light at a wavelength of approximately 355 nm (the laser system 360 is configured to deliver a laser light into the fiber bundle 362 feeding the hybrid catheter 363 [0150]. Specifically, the laser system 360 may deliver the laser light at a wavelength of 355 nm [0149-0150]);
a beam shaper receiving the laser light and produces a beam profile with desired diameter at the acceptance side of the catheter (an optical beam scrambling or homogenizing module 361 may include a beam shaper that is configured to enhance the uniformity and shape of the laser beam before it is coupled into the fiber bundle 361 for delivery to the hybrid catheter 363 [0150]. Specifically, the optical beam scrambling or homogenizing module 361 is inserted between the output of the laser system 360 and the fiber bundle 362 feeding the hybrid catheter 363 [0150, FIG. 3I]. The Examiner respectfully that the laser beam shape inherently includes a diameter which allows the laser beam to pass through the hybrid catheter 363 [0150])
a lens configured to focus the shaped laser light to focused laser light (the scrambling or homogenizing module 361 may comprise one or more of optical units which includes a beam shaper, a fly’s eye lens array, and a micro-lens array [0150]. The Examiner respectfully submits that a fly’s eye lens array and a micro-lens array are optical elements that known to focus light [0147, 0150]);
a catheter configured to be inserted into a destination inside patient's body (the hybrid catheter 363 is positioned at an organ wall (e.g., walls of the gastro-intestinal tract) inside the patient’s body [abstract, 0055-0056, 0150]); and
an optical fiber configured to transmit the focused and shaped laser beam and deliver the same to the destination inside the patient’s body for ablation (the fiber bundle 362 provides the focused and shaped laser beam through the hybrid catheter 363 to ablate the tissue [0147-0148, 0150, FIG. 3I]. As stated previously above, the optical beam scrambling or homogenizing module 361 may include a beam shaper and lenses (e.g., micro-lens array and fly’s eye lens array) which are configured to focus and shape the laser beam before it is couped into the fiber bundle 362 for delivery to the hybrid catheter 363 [0147-0148, 0150, FIG. 3I]).
Ben Oren teaches an alternate embodiment, wherein the optical fiber connects the lens and the catheter (the embodiments of figures 3G and 3H illustrates the fibers 351 that connects the lenses 350 with the hybrid catheter [0147, FIGS. 3G-3H]. Specifically, the lenses 350 are positioned at the end of the fibers 351 of the hybrid catheter to focus the light emitted from the fibers 351 in at least one dimension towards the tissue for ablation [0147-0148, FIGS. 3G-3H]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that each of the embodiments are drawn to catheters having optical fibers and lenses (the embodiment of figure 3I illustrates the hybrid catheter 363 having a fiber bundle 362 and the embodiment of figures 3G-3H illustrates the hybrid catheter having fibers 351 [0147, 0150, FIGS. 3G-3I]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine each of the embodiments to arrive at an overall device similar to the one claimed. Specifically, the combination of the embodiments will result in the optical fiber connecting the lens and catheter (as stated previously above, the lenses 350 are positioned at the end of the fibers 351 of the hybrid catheter to focus the light emitted from the fibers 351 in at least one dimension towards the tissue for ablation [0147-0148, FIGS. 3G-3H]). The advantage of such modification will allow for achievement of higher flux levels which may help in beam homogenization ([0147]).
Ben Oren does not explicitly teach the beam shaper to produce rounded shaped beam profile;
wherein the optical fiber is flexible; and
a laser signal draw configured to measure the frequency of the laser light for calibration;
The prior art by Grace is analogous to Ben Oren, as they both teach fiber optic catheters that are coupled to a laser generator ([abstract]).
Grace teaches the beam shaper to produce rounded shaped beam profile (the engineered diffuser 465 assist in focusing the beam into the desired shape, such as round or square shape [0074]).
The prior art by Tschida is analogous to Ben Oren, as they both teach a catheter that is coupled to a laser generator ([0038, 0538])
Tschida teaches wherein the optical fiber is flexible ([0218, 0343, 0543]);
a laser signal draw configured to measure the frequency of the laser light for calibration (the laser signal draw or controller 4020 is in operative communication with sensors on the laser catheter 4012 which can identify the parameters of the laser generator 4030 (e.g., pulse frequency, fluence, or the like) without direct communication with the laser generator 4030 and modify those parameters through operations controlled and contained within the treatment mode selection system 4018 (e.g., calibration process) [0538]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Ben Oren’s beam shaper to produce a rounded shaped beam profile, as taught by Grace. The advantage of such modification will prove a round beam that is symmetrical and relatively homogeneous (see paragraph [0074 by Grace). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the Ben Oren’s optical fiber to be flexible, as taught by Tschida. This modification is beneficial, as the flexible material may allow the optical fibers to be easily conformed and/or maneuvered within the body of the catheter (see paragraphs [0214, 0218, 0343, 0543] by Tschida). Lastly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Ben Oren’s laser tissue ablation apparatus to comprise a laser signal drawn that measures the frequency of the laser light for calibration, as further taught by Tschida. This modification is beneficial, as the laser signal draw (e.g., controller 4020) can receive the sensed laser beam parameters (e.g., pulse frequency) and further modify or calibrate the laser to deliver the desired laser beam parameters (see paragraph [0538] by Tschida).
Regarding claim 17, Ben Oren in view of Grace and Tschida suggests the laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13. Ben Oren teaches wherein a first beam of photons has a wavelength of approximately 1064 nm (the laser may generate beams of light (e.g., photons) which have a wavelength of 1064 nm [0149]), the second beam of photons having the first frequency has a wavelength of approximately 1064 nm (the laser may generate beams of light (e.g., photons) which have a wavelength of 1064 nm [0149]. The Examiner respectfully submits that each of the light beams inherently includes a pulse frequency [0117, 0149]), and photons having a second frequency has wavelength of approximately 532 (the laser may generate beams of light (e.g., photons) which have a wavelength of 532 nm [0218]. The Examiner respectfully submits that each of the light beams inherently includes a pulse frequency [0117, 0149, 0218]).
8. Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ben Oren et al. in view of Grace and Tschida et al., further in view of Yu et al. (US 2015/0002921 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Ben Oren in view of Grace and Tschida suggests the laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13. Ben Oren, Grace, and Tschida do not explicitly teach wherein a first non-linear crystal disk is a second harmonic crystal disk.
The prior art by Yu (US 2015/0002921 A1) is analogous to Ben Oren, as they both teach the use of a laser device ([0063]).
Yu teaches wherein a first non-linear crystal disk is a second harmonic crystal disk (the angle cut crystalline discs resonators are configured to transmit a nonlinear frequency of light [0060-0062, 0079, 0091]. Specifically, the light beams are defined as harmonic signals [0005, 0060, 00079, 0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Ben Oren’s laser tissue ablation apparatus to include a first non-linear crystal disk that is harmonic crystal disk, as taught by Yu. The advantage of such modification will provide a harmonic beam signal which has non-linear frequency (see paragraphs [0060-0062, 0079, 0091] by Yu).
Regarding claim 16, Ben Oren in view of Grace and Tschida suggests the laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13. Ben Oren, Grace, and Tschida do not explicitly teach wherein a second non-linear crystal disk is a third harmonic crystal disk.
Yu teaches wherein a second non-linear crystal disk is a third harmonic crystal disk (the angle cut crystalline discs resonators are configured to transmit a nonlinear frequency of light [0060-0062, 0079, 0091]. Specifically, the light beams are defined as harmonic signals [0005, 0060, 00079, 0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify Ben Oren’s laser tissue ablation apparatus to include a second non-linear crystal disk that is harmonic crystal disk, as taught by Yu. The advantage of such modification will provide a harmonic beam signal which has non-linear frequency (see paragraphs [0060-0062, 0079, 0091] by Yu).
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 14 and 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has provided an explanation below that describes how the prior art of record fails to suggests the corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 14, Ben Oren in view of Grace and Tschida suggests the laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13. Grace teaches a waveplate configured to receive and transmit a beam of photons (the waveplate 420 is configured to receive and transmit a beam of photons (e.g., light) [0005, 0060, FIG. 5]).
Ben Oren, Grace, and Tschida do not explicitly teach herein the light processing apparatus comprising:
a first non-linear crystal disk configured to transmit a first beam of photons having a first frequency to a second beam of photons having the first frequency and photons having a second frequency, the second frequency being approximately a half of the first frequency, the photons having the first frequency and the photons having the second frequency oscillate in polarization directions orthogonal to each other;
the waveplate configured to transmit the second beam of photons to a third beam of photons by rotating polarization directions of the second beam of photons such that the photons of the first frequency and the photons of the second frequency oscillating in approximately the same polarization directions; and
a second non-linear crystal disk configured to transmit the third beam of photons to a fourth beam of photons of the first frequency, photons of the second frequency and photons of a third frequency, the third frequency being approximate a third of the first frequency.
The prior art by Yu (US 2015/0002921 A1) is analogous to Ben Oren, as they both teach the use of a laser device ([0063]).
Yu teaches a first non-linear crystal disk configured to transmit a first beam of photons having a first frequency (the angle cut crystalline discs resonators are configured to transmit a nonlinear frequency of photons (e.g., light) [0061-0062, 0079, 0091]); and
a second non-linear crystal disk (the angle cut crystalline discs resonators are configured to transmit a nonlinear frequency of photons (e.g., light) [0061-0062, 0079, 0091]).
However, Yu does not explicitly teach the first non-linear crystal disk configured to transmit the first beam of photons having the first frequency to a second beam of photons having the first frequency and photons having a second frequency, the second frequency being approximately a half of the first frequency, the photons having the first frequency and the photons having the second frequency oscillate in polarization directions orthogonal to each other;
the waveplate configured to transmit the second beam of photons to a third beam of photons by rotating polarization directions of the second beam of photons such that the photons of the first frequency and the photons of the second frequency oscillating in approximately the same polarization directions; and
the second non-linear crystal disk configured to transmit the third beam of photons to a fourth beam of photons of the first frequency, photons of the second frequency and photons of a third frequency, the third frequency being approximate a third of the first frequency.
The Examiner further concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitations. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Regarding claim 18, Ben Oren in view of Grace and Tschida suggests the laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13. Grace teaches a waveplate that is configured to shift or rotate the polarization direction of the photons (the waveplate 420 is an optical device that shift or rotate the direction of photons (e.g. light) [0060]).
However, Ben Oren, Grace, and Tschida do not explicitly teach wherein the waveplate is configured to maintain the polarization direction of the photons of wavelength of 1064 nm while rotate the polarization direction of the photons of wavelength of 532 nm orthogonally.
The Examiner further concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitations. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Regarding claim 19, Ben Oren in view of Grace and Tschida suggests the laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13. Ben Oren, Grace, and Tschida do not explicitly teach a first temperature controller to control a first temperature of a first non-linear crystal disk to adjust the temperature.
However, Yu teaches a first non-linear crystal disk (the angle cut crystalline discs resonators are configured to transmit a nonlinear frequency of photons (e.g., light) [0061-0062, 0079, 0091]).
Yu does not explicitly teach a first temperature controller that is configured to control a first temperature of the first non-linear crystal disk. The Examiner respectfully submits that Yu does not explicitly teach the structures of the non-linear crystal disks to be coupled to a temperature controller.
The Examiner further concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitations. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Regarding claim 20, Ben Oren in view of Grace and Tschida suggests the laser tissue ablation apparatus of claim 13. Ben Oren, Grace, and Tschida do not explicitly teach a second temperature controller to control a second temperature of the second non-linear crystal disk to adjust the temperature.
However, Yu teaches a second non-linear crystal disk (the angle cut crystalline discs resonators are configured to transmit a nonlinear frequency of photons (e.g., light) [0061-0062, 0079, 0091]).
Yu does not explicitly teach a second temperature controller that is configured to control a second temperature of the second non-linear crystal disk. The Examiner respectfully submits that Yu does not explicitly teach the structures of the non-linear crystal disks to be coupled to a temperature controller.
The Examiner further concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitations. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Statement on Communication via Internet
10. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application.
For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON/Examiner, Art Unit 3792