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 .
Claim Status: Claims 1, 4-11, and 21 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on June 2, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant made an argument that Kittrell does not disclose switching irradiation direction by selecting among cores of a multicore optical fiber nor a configuration in which each core corresponds to a different irradiation direction based on a structural relationship with a lens. Applicant pointed to para. [0020], [0024], [0070]-[0072] of Kittrell and stated that Kittrell’s fiber selection determines a position or spot of irradiation on a surface, rather than switching an irradiation direction by selecting among cores of a multicore optical fiber.
This argument has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
Kittrell discloses that the overall distribution of light from the laser catheter may be controlled by disposing the fibers at different positions and angles (para. [0024]). FIG. 4 the optical fibers 20 a-c′ are arrayed such that each of the laser spots 27 a-c′ on the exterior surface of the optical shield 12 formed by exiting laser beams 29 a-c′ slightly overlap with adjacent spots (para. [0070]). Fig. 4 shows that different optical fiber (20 a-c) has different irradiation direction (27 a-c). Para. [0024] discloses that light distribution is determined by different positions and angles of fibers, meaning each fiber contributes to irradiating light in different directions. Fig. 19 and paras. [0106], [0109] discloses that the operation of shutter 44 controlled by computer 80 determines the amount of time each fiber 20 conducts the optical radiation to the tissue. Para. [0112] discloses that the shutter is then opened by the computer, allowing laser light to enter the selected fiber. Therefore, there is a selective use of optical fiber each of which yields different irradiation direction, which reads on the limitation “an irradiation direction switching portion”. Additionally, the curved shape of the lens together with different positions of the optical fibers would lead to different light refractions and thereby different irradiation directions (fig. 13A, para. [0093], a lens 221).
PNG
media_image1.png
430
590
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Response to Amendment
With respect to Claim Objection, Applicant’s amendment has not overcome each and every objection
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 4 and 5 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.
Re Claim 4, Claim 4 is indefinite because it depends on canceled claim 3.
Re Claim 5, “an irradiation direction of light” is indefinite, because it is unclear whether it is referring to “an irradiation direction of light” in claim 1 or a different one.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 is objected to because of the following informalities. There is a typographical error in line 5 of claim 1; “the light refracting potion” should be amended to “the light refracting portion”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-11, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kittrell et al. (US 2002/0045811A1).
Re Claim 1, Kittrell discloses a light diffusion device comprising:
an optical transmission cable including a plurality of light transmission paths through which light emitted from a light source is transmitted (fig. 13A, para. [0063], optical fibers 20); and
a light refracting portion (fig. 13A, para. [0093], a lens 221) provided at a distal end portion of the optical transmission cable, the light refracting potion being configured to refract the light emitted from each of the plurality of light transmission paths so that irradiation directions thereof are different from each other (fig. 13A, para. [0093]); and
an irradiation direction switching portion (fig. 19, para. [0106], [0109], The operation of shutter 44 controlled by computer 80 determines the amount of time each fiber 20 conducts the optical radiation to the tissue; para. [0112], The shutter is then opened by the computer, allowing laser light to enter the selected fiber; para. [0024], the overall distribution of light from the laser catheter may be controlled by disposing the fibers at different positions and angles; para. [0070], FIG. 4 the optical fibers 20 a-c′ are arrayed such that each of the laser spots 27 a-c′ on the exterior surface of the optical shield 12 formed by exiting laser beams 29 a-c′ slightly overlap with adjacent spots. Fig. 4 shows that different optical fiber (20 a-c) has different irradiation direction (27 a-c)),
wherein the optical transmission cable includes a multicore optical fiber (fig. 13A, para. [0063], optical fibers 20) in which cores serving as the plurality of light transmission paths are provided in one cladding (fig. 13A, para. [0063], optical shield 12),
the light refracting portion is a lens having a curved surface shape in which an incident surface on which the light emitted from each of the plurality of light transmission paths is incident projects toward the plurality of light transmission paths, and having a curved surface shape in which an emission surface on which incident light is emitted projects toward a light emission direction (fig. 13A, para. [0093], a lens 221 - the curved shape of the lens together with different positions of the optical fibers would lead to different light refractions and thereby different irradiation directions), and
the irradiation direction switching portion switches an irradiation direction of the light by switching the core that transmits the light among the cores of the multicore optical fiber (fig. 19, para. [0106], [0109], The operation of shutter 44 controlled by computer 80 determines the amount of time each fiber 20 conducts the optical radiation to the tissue; para. [0112], The shutter is then opened by the computer, allowing laser light to enter the selected fiber; para. [0024], the overall distribution of light from the laser catheter may be controlled by disposing the fibers at different positions and angles; para. [0070], FIG. 4 the optical fibers 20 a-c′ are arrayed such that each of the laser spots 27 a-c′ on the exterior surface of the optical shield 12 formed by exiting laser beams 29 a-c′ slightly overlap with adjacent spots. Fig. 4 shows that different optical fiber (20 a-c) has different irradiation direction (27 a-c)).
Re Claim 21, Kittrell discloses that each of the plurality of light transmission paths is defined by a respective core of the multicore optical fiber (fig. 13A, para. [0063], optical fibers 20), and each core is positioned relative to the light refracting portion such that light emitted from each core is refracted by the light refracting portion in a different irradiation direction (fig. 13A, para. [0093], a lens 221 – The curved shape of the lens together with different positions of the optical fibers would lead to different light refractions and thereby different irradiation directions).
Re Claim 5, Kittrell discloses that the optical transmission cable includes a plurality of single-core optical fibers each having, in one cladding, a core serving as one of the plurality of light transmission paths (fig. 13A, para. [0063], optical fibers 20), and an irradiation direction of light is switched by switching a single-core optical fiber that transmits the light among the plurality of single-core optical fibers (fig. 19, para. [0106], [0109], The operation of shutter 44 controlled by computer 80 determines the amount of time each fiber 20 conducts the optical radiation to the tissue; para. [0112], The shutter is then opened by the computer, allowing laser light to enter the selected fiber.).
Re Claim 6, Kittrell discloses that in the single-core optical fibers, end surfaces from which light is emitted are inclined with respect to an extending direction of the single-core optical fibers and a direction orthogonal or substantially orthogonal to the extending direction (fig. 13A-F shows that the end surfaces of the optical fibers are orthogonal to the extending direction).
Re Claim 7, Kittrell discloses that the light refracting portion is attachable to and detachable from the optical transmission cable (para. [0020], The enclosed protected region provided by the shield can be used to mount or incorporate elements of various kinds. Lenses or mirrors, and mechanical or optical aiming and focusing devices can be mounted inside of the shield.), and the light refracting portion having a different irradiation range at a portion irradiated with light is attachable to the optical transmission cable (para. [0093], fig. 13A-F shows different optical elements having a different irradiation range. Lens 221 is translated in the axial direction by longitudinal motion of control wires 221 a, which changes the spot size 27 and beam divergence 29 of FIG. 1).
Re Claim 8, Kittrell discloses that the light refracting portion is configured to change a distance from the distal end portion of the optical transmission cable in a state where the light refracting portion is attached to the distal end portion of the optical transmission cable (para. [0093], Lens 221 is translated in the axial direction by longitudinal motion of control wires 221 a, which changes the spot size 27 and beam divergence 29 of FIG. 1; para. [0020], Several fibers can be precisely positioned at different locations within the shield. Lenses or mirrors, and mechanical or optical aiming and focusing devices can be mounted inside of the shield. – Different locations of fibers change the distance between the lens and the distal end of the fibers; fig. 13A-F also shows a change in distance from the distal end portion of the optical transmission cable depending on the type of lens).
Re Claim 10, Kittrell discloses that light transmitted through the optical transmission cable has a wavelength of 600 nm or more and 900 nm or less (para. [0117], fig. 22, The fluorescence and scattered light is returned via the same or a different optical fiber 20 to the proximal end 40 of the optical fiber 20. This return fluorescent or scattered light 54 enters a spectrum analyzer 60; para. [0137], fig. 26A and 26B, Normal artery samples displayed distinct spectral peaks of approximately equal size at 550 and 600 nm.).
Re Claim 11, Kittrell discloses the light diffusion device as set forth in claim 10 and further discloses a medical equipment comprising the light diffusion device (abstract, controlled delivery of a laser beam for percutaneous intravascular laser treatment of atherosclerotic disease).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittrell et al. (US 2002/0045811A1) in view of Smith (US 2011/0141759A1).
Re Claim 4, Kittrell discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claims 1 and 3.
Kittrell is silent regarding an auxiliary light refracting portion configured to refract light between the distal end portion of the optical transmission cable and the light refracting portion.
However, Smith discloses multi-spot laser surgical probe using faceted optical elements (abstract) and teaches an auxiliary light refracting portion configured to refract light between the distal end portion of the optical transmission cable and the light refracting portion (fig. 1, fig. 2, fig. 3, para. [0018], a faceted optical element 204 formed around a ball lens 206, para. [0019], a multi-spot generator 302 incorporating a proximal faceted optical element 304, a distal faceted optical element 306, and a cylindrical gradient index (GRIN) lens 308).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Kittrell, by adding an auxiliary light refracting portion configured to refract light between the distal end portion of the optical transmission cable and the light refracting portion, as taught by Smith, for the purpose of producing a multi-spot pattern (para. [0018]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kittrell et al. (US 2002/0045811A1) in view of Bhagavatula et al. (US 7228033 B2).
Re Claim 9, Kittrell discloses the claimed invention substantially as set forth in claim 1.
Kittrell is silent regarding a cylindrical coupling member that couples the optical transmission cable and the light refracting portion.
Bhagavatula discloses a cylindrical coupling member that couples the optical transmission cable and the light refracting portion (fig. 2 and fig. 3, col. 6, lines 11-62, throat portion 16 is optically connected to lens member 14 and optical waveguide 12).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to modify Kittrell, by adding a cylindrical coupling member that couples the optical transmission cable and the light refracting portion, as taught by Bhagavatula, for the purpose of connecting the optical transmission cable and the light refracting portion (fig. 2 and fig. 3, col. 6, lines 11-62).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VYNN V HUH whose telephone number is (571)272-4684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 am to 5 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at (571) 270-5213. 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 J Klein/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/V.V.H./
Vynn Huh, September 25, 2026Examiner, Art Unit 3792
