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 1-20 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 12. Claim 12 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of Claim 2. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claims 1 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities. There is a typographical error in line 7 of claims 1 and 12; “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 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, and 20 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]).
Re Claim 2, Kittrell discloses that 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).
Re Claim 12, 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]),
wherein 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).
Re Claim 3, Kittrell discloses that 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), and an irradiation direction of light is switched by switching a core that transmits the light among the cores (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.).
Examiner’s note: the claim language “an irradiation direction of light is switched by switching a core that transmits the light among the cores” is a functional language and has been interpreted as an intended use, because the claim language is not tied to a structure that is capable of performing the function.
Re Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 3.
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.).
Examiner’s note: the claim language “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” is a functional language and has been interpreted as an intended use, because the claim language is not tied to a structure that is capable of performing the function.
Re Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 5.
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 16, Claim 16 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 6.
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 17, Claim 17 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 7.
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 18, Claim 18 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 8.
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 20, Claim 20 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 10.
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).
Claims 1, 9, 12, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bhagavatula et al. (US 7228033 B2).
Examiner notes: These grounds of rejection are given in order to address dependent claims 9 and 19 which are not rejected with Kittrell.
Re Claim 1, Bhagavatula 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. 2 and fig. 3, col. 6, lines 11-62, optical waveguides 12, a single-mode optical fiber, multi-mode optical fiber); and
a light refracting portion 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. 2, fig. 3, col. 6, lines 11-62, spherical lens portion 18).
Re Claim 9, 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).
Re Claim 12, Bhagavatula 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. 2 and fig. 3, col. 6, lines 11-62, optical waveguides 12, a single-mode optical fiber, multi-mode optical fiber); and
a light refracting portion 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. 2, fig. 3, col. 6, lines 11-62, spherical lens portion 18),
wherein 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. 2, fig. 3, col. 6, lines 11-62, spherical lens portion 18).
Re Claim 19, 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).
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.
Claims 4 and 14 are 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]).
Re Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected under substantially the same basis as claim 4.
Conclusion
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, December 27, 2025Examiner, Art Unit 3792