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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-23 are currently pending. Claims 4-5 are withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention. Claims 2 and 8-9 are canceled. As per the amendments filed on 12/17/2025, claims 1, 3-4, 6-7, 10, and 14-15 are amended and claims 20-23 are newly added.
Priority
The instant application (filed on 10/05/2022) is a non-provisional application filed under 35 USC 111(a). Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in the Federal Republic of Germany (DE 10 2021 211 330.3) on 10/07/2021. The Examiner used an English translation of the published DE 102021211330 A1 from Espacenet (see attached) to interpret the matching foreign application in the filed certified priority document. Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-23 are represented in this translated disclosure. Therefore, the instant application will receive an effective filing date of 10/07/2021 and all prior art will be evaluated with respect to this date.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 9 (Claim Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §112(b)), filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections of claims 7 and 14-15 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections of claims 7 and 14-15 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 9-10 (Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102), filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102 rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 14, 16, 18 and 19 have been fully considered. Claims 2 and 8 are canceled. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues:
Svanberg fails to teach and fails to suggest a connecting cable that is configured to supply a light applicator with light and/ or power by means of a power supply unit, wherein the connecting cable is at least partially stowed in a cavity of a handgrip element for positioning and/or insertion of a needle section and the handgrip element includes at least one stowage element in the cavity as claimed. According to the present invention, at least one stowage element is configured for receiving the wound connecting cable, and/ or stowing the connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement and the connecting cable is an electric power cable. Svanberg discloses a light coupling adapter device that includes a proximal end adapter 132 that is connected to a catheter body 102. There is no stowage element in the proximal end adapter 132 of Svanberg that is configured for receiving a wound connecting cable, and/or stowing the connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement, wherein the connecting cable is an electric power cable as claimed. As such, Svanberg does not teach or suggest each of the features recited in the claimed combination. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner favorably consider claim 1 as now presented and all claims that depend thereon. (11/26/2025 Remarks, pages 9-10)
This argument is persuasive. Claim 1 is amended to include the limitations of claims 2, 8, and 9 as well as the new limitation “the connecting cable being an electric power cable.” Claims 2 and 8 were previously rejected as anticipated by Svanberg while claim 9 was previously rejected as obvious over Svanberg in view of Elliot. Therefore, Svanberg does not anticipate “the handgrip element including at least one stowage element in the cavity, at least one stowage element being configured for receiving the wound connecting cable, and/or stowing the connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement, the connecting cable being an electric power cable” and the anticipation rejections of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 14, 16, 18 and 19 are withdrawn. See the response to arguments for claim 9 for further analysis.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks pages 10-15 (Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103), filed 11/26/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 3, 9-13, 15, and 17 have been fully considered. Claim 9 is canceled. Regarding claims 3 (11/26/2025 Remarks, page 10), 10 (11/26/2025 Remarks, pages 12-13), 11 (11/26/2025 Remarks, page 13), 12 (11/26/2025 Remarks, pages 13-14), 13- 15 (11/26/2025 Remarks, pages 14-15), and 17 (11/26/2025 Remarks, page 15), Applicant is interpreted as arguing that claims depending on claim 1 would inherit the arguments for claim 1. See the response to arguments for claim 9 for further analysis of claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant argues:
Claim 9 has been rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Svanberg in view of Elliott (US 2004/0081404 Al). As previously discussed above, Svanberg does not teach or suggest a connecting cable that is configured to supply a light applicator with light and/or power by means of a power supply unit, wherein the connecting cable is an electric power cable and is at least partially stowed in a cavity of a handgrip element for positioning and/or insertion of a needle section and the handgrip element includes at least one stowage element in the cavity as claimed. Elliott also does not provide any teaching or suggestion as to an electric power cable that is at least partially stowed in a cavity of a handgrip element, wherein the handgrip element includes at least one stowage element in the cavity that is configured for receiving the electric power cable, and/or stowing the electric power cable in a serpentine arrangement as featured in the present invention. Elliott discloses a fiber optic cable device 20 that includes a winding mechanism 24 within a housing 26 that allows for use of a variable length of fiber optic cable.
Elliott does not provide any teaching or suggestion as to providing the winding mechanism 24 in a handgrip of a light applicator of Svanberg. Elliott is merely concerned with providing a device that allows a reel of fiber optic cable to be unrolled. There is no disclosure in Elliott that would direct a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide the winding mechanism in a handgrip of a light applicator as featured in the present invention. Further, Elliott does not teach or suggest that the winding mechanism 24 receives and/or stows an electric power cable as featured in the present invention. Elliott only directs a person of ordinary skill in the art toward a winding mechanism 24 that stows a fiber optic cable, which is not an electric power cable as featured in the present invention. As such, the cited prior art references do not teach or suggest each of the features recited in the claimed combination. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the Examiner favorably reconsider the rejection in view of the claims as now presented. (11/26/2025 Remarks, pages 11-12)
This argument is persuasive. Svanberg in view of Elliott does not render obvious an electric power cable as the connecting cable, where the wound connecting cable is received by the stowage element or the connecting cable is stowed by the stowage element in a serpentine arrangement. Therefore, the prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-7, and 10-19 are withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Kwan (US 6188837 B1), see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section.
Newly added claims 20-23 are evaluated in light of the above arguments and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103” section).
Summary: The prior art rejections of claims 1, 3-7, and 10-19 are withdrawn. New 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for claims 1, 3-7, and 10-19 are added (see “Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103”). 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections for newly entered claims 20-23 are added. Note new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections are added as necessitated by amendments.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
• Claim 1: The statement “at least one stowage element being configured for receiving the wound connecting cable, and/or stowing the connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement” appears to have an unnecessary comma before “and/or”
• Claim 20: The statement “the at least one stowage element being configured for receiving the electric power connecting cable, and/or stowing the electric power connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement” appears to have an unnecessary comma before “and/or”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, and 10-23 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 1: The term “the wound connecting cable” lacks antecedence.
Claim 1: The claim states “a connecting cable configured to supply the light applicator with light and/or power by means of a power supply unit […] the connecting cable being an electric power cable.” The earlier part of the limitation would allow either a light transmission cable (such as an optical fiber) or electrical power cable while the later part of the limitation requires the electrical power cable. It is unclear what role a light transmission cable has within the scope of the claim.
Claim 1: The limitation “at least one stowage element being configured for receiving the wound connecting cable, and/or stowing the connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement, the connecting cable being an electric power cable” is indefinite because it is unclear how the electrical cable interacts with the stowage element (does the electrical cable wind around the element or merely store the pre-wound electrical cable?).
Claim 1: The limitation “a connecting cable configured to supply the light applicator with light and/or power by means of a power supply unit, wherein the connecting cable is at least partially stowed in a cavity of the handgrip element for positioning and/or insertion of the needle section, the handgrip element including at least one stowage element in the cavity, at least one stowage element being configured for receiving the wound connecting cable, and/or stowing the connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement, the connecting cable being an electric power cable” is made unclear by having multiple “and/or” statements contained in one limitation. The number of combinations made possible by these “and/or” statements makes the scope of the claims unclear.
Claim 20: The claim states “wherein the electric power connecting cable is at least partially stowed in the cavity for positioning and/or insertion of the needle section, the handgrip element including at least one stowage element in the cavity, the at least one stowage element being configured for receiving the electric power connecting cable, and/or stowing the electric power connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement.” The two alternatives are a stowage element which merely receives the power cord or stows (receives) the power cord in a serpentine arrangement. Comparing these alternatives would suggest the serpentine arrangement is optional because the first “receiving” alternative would always be in effect.
Dependent claims 3-7, 10-19, and 21-23 are rejected for being dependent on rejected claims.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 3, 6-7, 14, 16, and 18-23 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Svanberg (US PG Pub 2008/0249517 A1, see previously cited) in view of Kwan (US 6188837 B1, see “Notice of References Cited”).
Regarding Claim 1, Svanberg discloses a light applicator for the execution of a transcutaneous photodynamic therapy (PDT) in tissue of an organic body ([0002]), the light applicator comprising:
• a needle section, extending longitudinally along an insertion axis ([0036] – needle placed inside a catheter)
• at least one light-emitting element at a distal end of the needle section ([0069] – “An optical patient fibre 6 may be inserted distally through the lumen of the metal needle so that the tip of the optical fibre, at its distal end thereof, is arranged in the correct position towards tissue 8”);
• an at least partially light-transparent applicator tip extending at least partially distally from the at least one light-emitting element ([0069] – the tip is configured to irradiate tissue from light emanating from the tip of the optical fiber, which is placed inside the metal needle) and configured for inserting the needle section into the tissue of the organic body along the insertion axis ([0068] – insertion needle placed in tissue); and
• a handgrip element (132 - adaptor body, 102 – housing; [0077] – can be used as a hand grip to guide the catheter), arranged proximally with respect to the needle section (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-16 have the adaptor or housing placed along the same longitudinal axis as the needle), and configured for manually positioning the light applicator ([0077] – the apparatus is manually gripped to correctly position the apparatus), wherein the handgrip element is configured to be coupled to the needle section for positioning and/or insertion thereof, and is configured to be detachable from the needle section for the execution of the PDT ([0036] – needle is insertable and can be detached from the rest of the apparatus)
• a connecting cable configured to supply the light applicator with light and/or power by means of a power supply unit ([0022] – “An exemplary system for photodynamic or photothermal therapy and/or diagnosis of a tissue by an apparatus comprises at least one source of laser radiation, at least one radiation conductor for transmitting the laser radiation to said tissue, and a mechanism for connecting said radiation conductor to said laser source”)
• the connecting cable is at least partially stowed in a cavity of the handgrip element for positioning and/or insertion of the needle section, the handgrip element including at least one stowage element in the cavity (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-16, [0083] – the optical fiber 36 and light guide 38 are partially contained within the adaptor body and housing).
Svanberg discloses a photodynamic therapy device ([0002]) with an adaptor body 132 and housing 102 which can be gripped to guide a catheter ([0077]). These grip elements are connected to a light radiation source via a radiation conductor ([0022]). Note the optical fiber 36 and light guide 38 are partially contained through the adaptor body and housing (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-16, [0083]). However, Svanberg does not disclose at least one stowage element being configured for receiving the wound connecting cable, and/or stowing the connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement, the connecting cable being an electric power cable.
The electric hair dryer in Kwan would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)1) to the claimed invention because Kwan teaches a stowable electric power cable for the electric hair dryer (col 2, lines 27-42).
Kwan teaches:
Furthermore, it is well known that the power cords from 25 adjacently stored corded appliances tend to entangle together and it would be difficult to separate the entangled power cords. As there are ever-increasing varieties of corded electrical appliances, this is an annoying phenomenon which a designer of electric appliances need to consider in the 30 development of new appliances […] Portable hair dryers with retractable power cord storage devices are already known. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,528,440 and 5,784,800 issued respectively to Ishihara and Santhouse et al. represent better known types of them. (col 1, lines 25-44)
The instant specification teaches:
On the other hand, long connecting cables can lead to a tangle of cables and/or a lack of clarity when many light applicators are used in parallel. Moreover, a connecting cable that is too long can sag unhygienically onto the floor, or come into contact with other non-sterile objects. Finally, the connecting cable, due to its own weight, and/or tensile stress, can exert a lateral force on the needle section with a leverage effect, which should be minimized as much as possible. A connecting cable that is fixedly connected to the needle section is therefore preferably arranged to be as light as possible, and bundled in an orderly manner in or on the handgrip element. [0013]
The potential for tangled electrical power cords would be seen as a common problem to be solved for electrically-powered devices requiring power cords. Therefore, the power cord storage feature in Kwan would been seen as “reasonably pertinent” to the claimed invention. Kwan teaches the applicator source (in this case the motor 23 and driven fan 24) being housed in a handheld device (col 3, lines 34-57) and powered via a retractable electrical cable housed in a reel in the more proximal handgrip section (col 3, lines 58-67 and col 4, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Svanberg’s photodynamic therapy device by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan. This would have been obvious because both Svanberg and Kwan discuss a handheld applicator attached to a cable and Kwan provides a solution/improvement with elements which need to be powered placed inside a hand held device connected to an external power source by a retractable power cable in order to consolidate the device function into a singular portable, hand-held device. Note in this improvement, a radiation conductor powered via a retractable electrical power cable is placed within a housing handle contacting a needle section containing the optical fiber. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the applicator of Svanberg by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan.
Therefore, Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 3, the light applicator according to Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg discloses a photodynamic therapy device ([0002]) with an adaptor body 132 and housing 102 which can be gripped to guide a catheter ([0077]). These grip elements are connected to a light radiation source via a radiation conductor ([0022]). Note the optical fiber 36 and light guide 38 are partially contained through the adaptor body and housing (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-16, [0083]). However, Svanberg does not disclose wherein the connecting cable comprises a proximal-side connector configured for connection to a port on the power supply unit.
The electric hair dryer in Kwan would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)I) to the claimed invention because Kwan teaches a stowable electric power cable for the electric hair dryer (col 2, lines 27-42). Both Kwan (col 1, lines 25-44) and the instant specification ([0013]) teach tangled electrical power cords would be seen as a common problem to be solved for electrically-powered devices requiring power cords. Therefore, the power cord storage feature in Kwan would been seen as “reasonably pertinent” to the claimed invention. Kwan teaches the applicator source (in this case the motor 23 and driven fan 24) being housed in a handheld device (col 3, lines 34-57) and powered via a retractable electrical cable housed in a reel in the more proximal handgrip section (col 3, lines 58-67 and col 4, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Svanberg’s photodynamic therapy device by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan. This would have been obvious because both Svanberg and Kwan discuss a handheld applicator attached to a cable and Kwan provides a solution/improvement with elements which need to be powered placed inside a hand held device connected to an external power source by a retractable power cable in order to consolidate the device function into a singular portable, hand-held device. Note in this improvement, a radiation conductor powered via a retractable electrical power cable is placed within a housing handle contacting a needle section containing the optical fiber. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the applicator of Svanberg by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan.
Therefore, Claim 3 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 6, the light applicator according to Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses the connecting cable is fixedly connected to the needle section on a needle section distal side ([0069] – “An optical patient fibre 6 may be inserted distally through the lumen of the metal needle so that the tip of the optical fibre, at its distal end thereof, is arranged in the correct position towards tissue 8”, [0090] – “the end of the optical fibre 136 or 236, respectively appears to converge into the tip of needle 111. However, in practice the needle is slightly wider than the optical fiber, in order to house the fibre therein”). Note, as per the claim 1 language “a connecting cable configured to supply the light applicator with light and/or power by means of a power supply unit,” the connecting cable can still be an optical fiber outside of the cable storage portion provided in Kwan.
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 7, the light applicator according to Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses:
• the handgrip element has a first length along the insertion axis (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-10b show the adaptor 132 and housing 102 have a certain length along the longitudinal axis);
• the connecting cable has a second length ([0083] – the optical connector 28 which connects to the source has a particular length); and
• the second length is greater than the first length (the connector described in [0022] and [0083] is used to connect the source to the grip element, where the connector could reasonably be expected to span a distance to the source, which would be removed a distance from the patient, multiple times greater than the distance of a grip section which can be held in a hand).
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 14, the light applicator according to Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses:
• the needle section has a first diameter transverse to the insertion axis (Fig. 9a-9b, [0090] – needle 111 with a particular diameter);
• the handgrip element has a second diameter transverse to the insertion axis (Fig. 9a-9b, [0090] - the adaptor 132 and housing 102 have a particular diameter); and
• the second diameter is larger than the first diameter (Fig. 9a-9b, [0090] - the needle 111 is depicted as being multiple times smaller than the greater diameter of adaptor 132 and not much larger than the optical fiber).
Therefore, Claim 14 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 16, the light applicator according to Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses the handgrip element is produced from at least two interconnected parts (Figs. 3 and 8a, [0078] – optical connector 37 carrying the optical fiber from the light source connects with the adaptor 32; Figs. 9a and 9b, [0090] - optical connector 137 carrying the optical fiber from the light source connects with the adaptor 132).
Therefore, Claim 16 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 18, the light applicator according to Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses the handgrip element has a tapered portion that is tapered on a distal side of the handgrip (Figs. 9a and 9b – the adaptor 132 has a greater diameter than housing 102, where housing 102 tapers down to a smaller diameter in the distal direction along the longitudinal axis).
Therefore, Claim 18 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 19, the light applicator according to Claim 18 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses the tapered portion of the handgrip element is configured so as to grip a proximal end of the needle section in a state the handgrip element is coupled to the needle section, for purposes of positioning and/or insertion of the needle section ([0077] - the tapered housing 102 is used to hold the catheter and needle elements in place: “The catheter fits concentrically over the introducer needle and is held in place by friction engagement between the catheter needle adaptor 103 and the catheter housing 102. The relative lengths of the introducer needle and the catheter cannula are such that the tip of the introducer needle extends beyond the end of the catheter cannula when the introducer needle is attached to the housing”).
Therefore, Claim 19 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 20, Svanberg discloses a light applicator for the execution of a transcutaneous photodynamic therapy (PDT) in tissue of an organic body ([0002]), the light applicator comprising:
• a needle section, extending longitudinally along an insertion axis ([0036] – needle placed inside a catheter);
• at least one light-emitting element at a distal end of the needle section ([0069] – “An optical patient fibre 6 may be inserted distally through the lumen of the metal needle so that the tip of the optical fibre, at its distal end thereof, is arranged in the correct position towards tissue 8”);
• an at least partially light-transparent applicator tip, extending at least partially distally from the at least one light-emitting element ([0069] – the tip is configured to irradiate tissue from light emanating from the tip of the optical fiber, which is placed inside the metal needle) and configured for inserting the needle section into the tissue of the organic body along the insertion axis ([0068] – insertion needle placed in tissue);
• a handgrip element (132 - adaptor body, 102 – housing; [0077] – can be used as a hand grip to guide the catheter), arranged proximally with respect to the needle section (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-16 have the adaptor or housing placed along the same longitudinal axis as the needle), and configured for manually positioning the light applicator ([0077] – the apparatus is manually gripped to correctly position the apparatus), wherein the handgrip element is configured to be coupled to the needle section for positioning and/or insertion thereof, and is configured to be detachable from the needle section for the execution of the PDT ([0036] – needle is insertable and can be detached from the rest of the apparatus), the handgrip element comprising an inner handgrip element surface, the inner handgrip element surface defining a cavity (Fig. 3, [0074-0075] – the interior of the handgrip contains a lumen);
Svanberg discloses a photodynamic therapy device ([0002]) with an adaptor body 132 and housing 102 which can be gripped to guide a catheter ([0077]). These grip elements are connected to a light radiation source via a radiation conductor ([0022]). Note the optical fiber 36 and light guide 38 are partially contained through the adaptor body and housing (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-16, [0083]). However, Svanberg does not disclose
• an electric power connecting cable configured to supply the light applicator with at least power via a power supply unit,
wherein the electric power connecting cable is at least partially stowed in the cavity for positioning and/or insertion of the needle section,
the handgrip element including at least one stowage element in the cavity, the at least one stowage element being configured for receiving the electric power connecting cable, and/or stowing the electric power connecting cable in a serpentine arrangement.
The electric hair dryer in Kwan would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)1) to the claimed invention because Kwan teaches a stowable electric power cable for the electric hair dryer (col 2, lines 27-42).
Kwan teaches:
Furthermore, it is well known that the power cords from 25 adjacently stored corded appliances tend to entangle together and it would be difficult to separate the entangled power cords. As there are ever-increasing varieties of corded electrical appliances, this is an annoying phenomenon which a designer of electric appliances need to consider in the 30 development of new appliances […] Portable hair dryers with retractable power cord storage devices are already known. U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,528,440 and 5,784,800 issued respectively to Ishihara and Santhouse et al. represent better known types of them. (col 1, lines 25-44)
The instant specification teaches:
On the other hand, long connecting cables can lead to a tangle of cables and/or a lack of clarity when many light applicators are used in parallel. Moreover, a connecting cable that is too long can sag unhygienically onto the floor, or come into contact with other non-sterile objects. Finally, the connecting cable, due to its own weight, and/or tensile stress, can exert a lateral force on the needle section with a leverage effect, which should be minimized as much as possible. A connecting cable that is fixedly connected to the needle section is therefore preferably arranged to be as light as possible, and bundled in an orderly manner in or on the handgrip element. [0013]
The potential for tangled electrical power cords would be seen as a common problem to be solved for electrically-powered devices requiring power cords. Therefore, the power cord storage feature in Kwan would been seen as “reasonably pertinent” to the claimed invention. Kwan teaches the applicator source (in this case the motor 23 and driven fan 24) being housed in a handheld device (col 3, lines 34-57) and powered via a retractable electrical cable housed in a reel in the more proximal handgrip section (col 3, lines 58-67 and col 4, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Svanberg’s photodynamic therapy device by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan. This would have been obvious because both Svanberg and Kwan discuss a handheld applicator attached to a cable and Kwan provides a solution/improvement with elements which need to be powered placed inside a hand held device connected to an external power source by a retractable power cable in order to consolidate the device function into a singular portable, hand-held device. Note in this improvement, a radiation conductor powered via a retractable electrical power cable is placed within a housing handle contacting a needle section containing the optical fiber. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the applicator of Svanberg by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan.
Therefore, Claim 20 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 21, the light applicator according to Claim 20 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg discloses a photodynamic therapy device ([0002]) with an adaptor body 132 and housing 102 which can be gripped to guide a catheter ([0077]). These grip elements are connected to a light radiation source via a radiation conductor ([0022]). Note the optical fiber 36 and light guide 38 are partially contained through the adaptor body and housing (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-16, [0083]). However, Svanberg does not disclose the connecting cable comprises a proximal-side connector configured for connection to a port on the power supply unit.
The electric hair dryer in Kwan would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)I) to the claimed invention because Kwan teaches a stowable electric power cable for the electric hair dryer (col 2, lines 27-42). Both Kwan (col 1, lines 25-44) and the instant specification ([0013]) teach tangled electrical power cords would be seen as a common problem to be solved for electrically-powered devices requiring power cords. Therefore, the power cord storage feature in Kwan would been seen as “reasonably pertinent” to the claimed invention. Kwan teaches the applicator source (in this case the motor 23 and driven fan 24) being housed in a handheld device (col 3, lines 34-57) and powered via a retractable electrical cable housed in a reel in the more proximal handgrip section (col 3, lines 58-67 and col 4, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Svanberg’s photodynamic therapy device by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan. This would have been obvious because both Svanberg and Kwan discuss a handheld applicator attached to a cable and Kwan provides a solution/improvement with elements which need to be powered placed inside a hand held device connected to an external power source by a retractable power cable in order to consolidate the device function into a singular portable, hand-held device. Note in this improvement, a radiation conductor powered via a retractable electrical power cable is placed within a housing handle contacting a needle section containing the optical fiber. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the applicator of Svanberg by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan.
Therefore, Claim 21 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 22, the light applicator according to Claim 20 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses the connecting cable is fixedly connected to the needle section on a needle section distal side ([0069] – “An optical patient fibre 6 may be inserted distally through the lumen of the metal needle so that the tip of the optical fibre, at its distal end thereof, is arranged in the correct position towards tissue 8”, [0090] – “the end of the optical fibre 136 or 236, respectively appears to converge into the tip of needle 111. However, in practice the needle is slightly wider than the optical fiber, in order to house the fibre therein”).
Therefore, Claim 22 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Regarding Claim 23, the light applicator according to Claim 20 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses:
• the handgrip element has a first length along the insertion axis (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-10b show the adaptor 132 and housing 102 have a certain length along the longitudinal axis);
• the connecting cable has a second length ([0083] – the optical connector 28 which connects to the source has a particular length); and
• the second length is greater than the first length (the connector described in [0022] and [0083] is used to connect the source to the grip element, where the connector could reasonably be expected to span a distance to the source, which would be removed a distance from the patient, multiple times greater than the distance of a grip section which can be held in a hand).
Therefore, Claim 23 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Svanberg (US PG Pub 2008/0249517 A1, see previously cited) in view of in view of Kwan (US 6188837 B1, see “Notice of References Cited”) and Sung (US PG Pub 2009/0242688 A1, see “Notice of References Cited”).
Regarding Claim 10, the light applicator according to Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg does not disclose the connecting cable is configured to have a spiraled form in a relaxed state.
Sung, in the same field of endeavor of using cables to connect to devices ([0001-0002]), teaches coiled electrical lines/cables are well known in the art ([0002]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Svanberg’s photodynamic therapy device with the helical power line wires in Sung. At the time, there would have been a recognized need to have a connection between the light source and the power source. Sung describes a helical electrical wire as a well-known shape of a connecting power wire, meaning the helical/coiled wire design would be obvious to try. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of implementing a naturally helical/coiled wire as a the electrical power wire.
Therefore, Claim 10 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan and Sung.
Regarding Claim 11, the light applicator according to Claim 10 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan and Sung, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg discloses a photodynamic therapy device ([0002]) with an adaptor body 132 and housing 102 which can be gripped to guide a catheter ([0077]). These grip elements are connected to a light radiation source via a radiation conductor ([0022]). Note the optical fiber 36 and light guide 38 are partially contained within the adaptor body and housing (Fig. 3, Figs. 7-16, [0083]). However, Svanberg does not disclose a stowage element extends axially in a cavity of the handgrip element; and the connecting cable is helically wound onto the stowage element.
The electric hair dryer in Kwan would be considered “reasonably pertinent” (see MPEP 2141.01(a)I) to the claimed invention because Kwan teaches a stowable electric power cable for the electric hair dryer (col 2, lines 27-42). Both Kwan (col 1, lines 25-44) and the instant specification ([0013]) teach tangled electrical power cords would be seen as a common problem to be solved for electrically-powered devices requiring power cords. Therefore, the power cord storage feature in Kwan would been seen as “reasonably pertinent” to the claimed invention. Kwan teaches the applicator source (in this case the motor 23 and driven fan 24) being housed in a handheld device (col 3, lines 34-57) and powered via a retractable electrical cable housed in a reel in the more proximal handgrip section (col 3, lines 58-67 and col 4, lines 1-15).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Svanberg’s photodynamic therapy device by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan. This would have been obvious because both Svanberg and Kwan discuss a handheld applicator attached to a cable and Kwan provides a solution/improvement with elements which need to be powered placed inside a hand held device connected to an external power source by a retractable power cable in order to consolidate the device function into a singular portable, hand-held device. Note in this improvement, a radiation conductor powered via a retractable electrical power cable is placed within a housing handle contacting a needle section containing the optical fiber. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the applicator of Svanberg by incorporating the retractable power cable which can be placed within a housing in Kwan.
Therefore, Claim 11 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan.
Claim 12 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Svanberg (US PG Pub 2008/0249517 A1, see previously cited) in view of Kwan (US 6188837 B1, see “Notice of References Cited”) and Lee (US 7494350 B1, see previously cited).
Regarding Claim 12, the light applicator according to Claim 3 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg discloses a photodynamic therapy device ([0002]) with an
adaptor body 132 and housing 102 which can be gripped to guide a catheter ([0077]). However, Svanberg does not disclose the proximal-side connector of the connecting cable is integrated into the handgrip element and for execution of the PDT, the handgrip element, in a state detached from the needle section, serves as a plug element for purposes of insertion into the port on the power supply unit.
Lee, in the same field of endeavor of connecting an electronic device to a power source (Col 1, Lines 32-53), teaches a variable length power connector/plug where the connector/plug can rest in the housing of an electronic device (Col 1, Lines 32-53). Lee teaches the reason for this arrangement as “therefore, the plug of the electrical device may be selectively retracted to prevent prong damage, improve safety and aesthetics of design” (Col 1, Lines 47-49). In this manner, the housing in Svanberg could be placed adjacent to the light source with a variable length connector/plug which can rest in the device housing.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Svanberg’s photodynamic therapy device by incorporating the variable length connector/plug from an electronic device to a power source in Lee. This would have been obvious because both Svanberg and Lee discuss connections to power sources and Lee provides a solution/improvement by shortening the distance between the device housing and power source to improve safety and prevent device damage. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the applicator of Svanberg by incorporating the variable length connector/plug from an electronic device to a power source in Lee.
Therefore, Claim 12 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan and Lee.
Claims 13 and 15 are rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Svanberg (US PG Pub 2008/0249517 A1, see previously cited) in view of Kwan (US 6188837 B1, see “Notice of References Cited”) and Binmoeller (US PG Pub 2017/0035424 A1, see previously cited).
Regarding Claim 13, the light applicator according to Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses a guide element, which is fixedly connected to, or integrated with, the needle section at a proximal end of the needle section and is shaped to correspond to the handgrip element ([0077] - the tapered housing 102 is used to hold the catheter and needle elements in place: “The catheter fits concentrically over the introducer needle and is held in place by friction engagement between the catheter needle adaptor 103 and the catheter housing 102. The relative lengths of the introducer needle and the catheter cannula are such that the tip of the introducer needle extends beyond the end of the catheter cannula when the introducer needle is attached to the housing”). However, Svanberg does not disclose the guide element and the handgrip element are insertable into each other spring-loaded.
Binmoeller, in the same field of endeavor of a tissue penetrating device ([0018]), teaches a spring loaded penetration device ([0083] – a penetrating device is loaded into the handle). The purpose of the spring loaded feature is described: “On release of the component, a tissue-penetrating component may shoot forward at high velocity. The velocity that may be desirable may depend on the tissue whose penetration is desired. A high velocity operation avoids striction effect and hence is more repeatable and accurate. Thus, the device may be able to penetrate in a more predictable and precisely calculable fashion” ([0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Svanberg’s photodynamic therapy device with a needle by incorporating the spring loaded penetration mechanism in Binmoeller. This would have been obvious because both Svanberg and Binmoeller discuss devices which penetrate tissue to deliver therapy and Binmoeller provides a solution/improvement with a spring loaded mechanism to more exactly and reproducible control how tissue is penetrated. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the applicator of Svanberg by incorporating the spring loaded penetration mechanism in Binmoeller.
Therefore, Claim 13 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan and Binmoeller.
Regarding Claim 15, the light applicator according to Claim 13 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan and Binmoeller, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg further discloses:
• the needle section has a first diameter transverse to the insertion axis (Fig. 9a-9b, [0090] – needle 111 with a particular diameter);
• the handgrip element has a second diameter transverse to the insertion axis (Fig. 9a-9b, [0090] - the adaptor 132 and housing 102 have a particular diameter); and
• the second diameter is larger than the first diameter (Fig. 9a-9b, [0090] - the needle 111 is depicted as being multiple times smaller than the greater diameter of adaptor 132 and not much larger than the optical fiber);
• the guide element has a third diameter transverse to the insertion axis ([0077] - the tapered housing 102 is used to hold the catheter and needle elements in place); and
•the third diameter is larger than the first diameter, and smaller than the second diameter (Figs. 9a and 9b – the adaptor 132 has a greater diameter than housing 102, where housing 102 tapers down to a smaller diameter in the distal direction along the longitudinal axis).
Therefore, Claim 13 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan and Binmoeller.
Claim 17 is rejected under U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Svanberg (US PG Pub 2008/0249517 A1, see previously cited) in view of Kwan (US 6188837 B1, see “Notice of References Cited”) and Kuhn (US PG Pub 2015/0057724 A1, see previously cited).
Regarding Claim 17, the light applicator according to Claim 1 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan, as indicated hereinabove. Svanberg discloses a photodynamic therapy device ([0002]) with an adaptor body 132 and housing 102 which can be gripped to guide a catheter ([0077]). These grip elements are connected to a light radiation source via a radiation conductor ([0022]). However, Svanberg does not disclose electronics configured for light applicator identification, wherein the electronics for light applicator identification are arranged in the handgrip element.
Kuhn, in the same field of a photodynamic therapy ([0006-0008]), teaches control device electronics placed along the optical pathway which measure optical properties via a sensor to inform a feedback mechanism ([0033]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to alter Svanberg’s photodynamic therapy device with a needle by incorporating the optical fiber light detector in Kuhn. This would have been obvious because both Svanberg and Kuhn discuss photodynamic therapy devices and Kuhn provides a solution/improvement using a sensor to monitor light along the length of the optical fiber for adjustment at the source. Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to improve the handgrip of Svanberg by incorporating the optical fiber light detector in Kuhn.
Therefore, Claim 17 is obvious over Svanberg in view of Kwan and Kuhn.
Conclusions
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Examiner Benjamin Schmitt, whose telephone number is 703-756-1345. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/Benjamin A. Schmitt/
Examiner
Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796