DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-4, 6-10, and 12-20 are pending.
Claims 5, 11, and 21 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
First, Applicant argues that Griffin (US 9678275 B1, 2017-06-13) does not teach the various elements recited in the claims. Specifically, Applicant writes:
“Applicant is unable to find in Griffin "a coating on lateral surfaces of the polymer jacket, and on a face of the core, and on an axial face of the polymer jacket wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure." In contrast, independent claim as amended recite this limitation.” See Remarks at 5.
“Applicant is unable to find in Griffin a coating on a lens, wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure, and wherein the lens includes a flat end and lateral sides, and wherein the coating is on the flat end and lateral sides. Claim 13 as amended recites this limitation.” See Remarks at 6.
“. . . the lens of Griffin does not include coated lateral surfaces. The rejection of previously pending claim 21 does not point to any structure in either Griffin or Welches to show this limitation.
Applicant’s argument has been fully considered but it is not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Griffin teaches that a sapphire ferrule fitted to the tip of an optical fiber. See, e.g., 8:61-65, 12:59-64. Griffin also teaches that the face and lateral surfaces of a sapphire protective tip wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure. See, e.g., 14:5-40 (“The hydrophobic or super-hydrophobic surface is preferably located on the external output surface and within the bore, preferably, covering the internal setback surface, in one instance, the hydrophobic surface is includes within the borehole (preferably covering the setback surface).”) (emphasis added).
Note that the ferrule bore is coated with a hydrophobic coating that touches on the lateral surfaces of the polymer jacket, and on a face of the core, and on an axial face of the polymer jacket. Accordingly, Griffin teaches a coating on lateral surfaces of the polymer jacket, and on a face of the core, and on an axial face of the polymer jacket wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure.
Regarding claim 13, Griffin teaches that “[t]he hydrophobic or super-hydrophobic surface is preferably located on the external output surface . . .” See 14:13-14. According to Griffin, the external output surface may be a lens. See, e.g., 15:25-27 (“. . . the fiber output surface and the ferrule lens cooperatively focus the beam on the surgical target.”). Therefore, Griffin teaches a coating on the lens, wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure.
As Advisory Action (4/9/2026) states:
Griffin teaches hydrophobic FA coating (e.g., 275, Fig. 5) as the outermost coating of one or more outer layers. Moreover, Griffin also teaches that the sapphire protective tip (or lens) has a hydrophobic coating, for example, external surface and within the bores. See, e.g., 14:5-40 (‘The hydrophobic or super-hydrophobic surface is preferably located on the external output surface and within the bore, preferably, covering the internal setback surface, in one instance, the hydrophobic surface is includes within the borehole (preferably covering the setback surface).’). As such, Griffin also teaches a coating on lateral surfaces of the polymer jacket (in contact with the bores), and on a face and lateral surfaces of a sapphire protective tip wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure.
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:
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.
Claims 1, 6-7, 12, and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 9678275 B1, 2017-06-13) in view of Welches (US 20160128777 A1, 2016-05-12).
Regarding claims 1, 5-7, 11-12, and 13-17, as discussed above (Response to Arguments incorporated by reference herein) Griffin teaches a laser system comprising; a laser fiber coupled to a lasing medium outlet, including: a core for transmitting laser light (e.g., Figs. 4, 6); and a coating (175, Fig. 4; 345, Fig. 6) on at least a portion of the laser fiber, wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure. See, e.g., Figs. 4-6 and associated text. Note that Griffin also teaches pulsed and CW lasers (e.g., 1:17-26), various lenses and materials, such as sapphire (e.g., 7:5-10; 9:50-55; 12:55-63), and various polymer jacket configuration (e.g., 6:16-65; 15:4-27).
Note that Griffin teaches a polymer jacket (proximal to 285 and covering bare fiber 260, Fig. 5) covering lateral surfaces of the core (260, Fig. 5).
Moreover, Griffin teaches that hydrophobic surfaces serve to eliminate condensation and ensure that the Moses bubble is retained at the output face (or order to prevents the interaction of the saline and/or biological fluids with the fiber output face). Specifically, Griffin teaches that for the ferrule, “a hydrophobic interior surface is desirable” in order to eliminate condensation of droplets deeper within a hydrophilic ferrule bore. See 11:19-21. Griffin also teaches that “[t]o improve the retention of the air bubble or Moses bubble at the fiber output face, the ferrule can include a hydrophobic or super-hydrophobic surface.” See 14:10-13. Lastly, Griffin teaches the lateral surfaces of the core is coated with a hydrophobic FA coating (345, Fig. 6). See 13:16-18.
Griffin does not expressly teach a lasing medium; a pumping lamp adjacent to the lasing medium; and circuitry to control the pumping lamp.
Welches teaches a lasing medium and a pumping lamp adjacent to the lasing medium. See, e.g., [0037].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Welches with the invention taught by Griffin and to modify the invention taught by Griffin such that the invention further comprises a lasing medium; a pumping lamp adjacent to the lasing medium; and circuitry to control the pumping lamp; a polymer jacket covering lateral surfaces of the core; and a coating on lateral surfaces of the polymer jacket, and on a face of the core, and on an axial face of the polymer jacket wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure (as recited in claim 1); wherein the circuitry is configured as a pulsed laser system (as recited in claim 6); a laser device, comprising: a laser fiber adapted for coupling to a lasing medium outlet, including: a core for transmitting laser light; one or more outer layers covering lateral surfaces of the core; and a coating as an outermost layer of the one or more outer layers, and on a face of the core, and on an axial face of the one or more outer layers wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure (as recited in claim 7); the coating covers an entire outer surface of the laser fiber (as recited in claim 12); a laser device, comprising: a laser fiber adapted for coupling to a lasing medium outlet, including: a core for transmitting laser light; a lens at an end of the core; and a coating on the lens, wherein the coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure, wherein the lens includes a flat end and lateral sides, and wherein the coating is on the flat end and lateral sides (as recited in claim 13); wherein the lens is flat at an orientation normal to a direction of laser light, when in operation (as recited in claim 14); wherein the lens is shaped to alter or focus laser light, when in operation (as recited in claim 15); wherein the lens includes sapphire material (as recited in claim 16); further including a second coating on at least a portion of a lateral surface of the laser fiber, wherein the second coating includes a hydrophobic physical structure (as recited in claim 17) in order to improve the effectiveness and durability of the medical device given a particular medical use.
Claims 2-4, 8-10, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffin (US 9678275 B1, 2017-06-13) in view of Welches, as applied to claims 1, 7, and 13, and further in view of Felts et al. (US 20120252709 A1, 2012-10-04) (hereinafter “Felts”).
Regarding claims 2-4, 8-10, and 18-20, Griffin teaches a laser system as discussed above, except comprising the particular materials and substances recited in the claims at issue. Felts discloses various coating materials and substances for medical devices, as recited in the claims. See, e.g., [0031], [0350], [0366]-[0377], [0722]. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Felts with the invention taught by Griffin such that the invention further comprises wherein the coating includes nanoparticles that form the hydrophobic physical structure (as recited in claims 2, 8, 18); wherein the coating includes hexamethyldisiloxane (HMDSO) (as recited in claims 3, 9, 19); wherein the coating includes fluorosilane (as recited in claims 4, 10, 20) in order to achieve the appropriate hydrophobic properties for a given medical use.
Prior Art of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered to be pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Courtney et al. (US 20160022244 A1, 2016-01-28) teaches the advantages of hydrophilic surfaces in medical probes. See, e.g., [0220].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT T LUAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1860. The examiner can normally be reached on 9am-5pm, M-F (generally).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Gary Jackson, can be reached on 571-272-4697. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
Scott Luan
/SCOTT LUAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights