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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 4/2/2026 has been entered. The amendment canceled claim 13. Claims 1-12 and 14 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s remarks filed on 4/2/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-12 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Specifically, the Examiner acknowledges Toledo-Crow (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/01470139) fails to teach wherein the laser source is nano-second or pico-second pulsed laser. The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of 1, 4, 10-12 and 14 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/2/2026, with respect to the drawing objection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts a drawing is not necessary for understanding a configuration of claims 5, 7, 8 and 12. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant’s argument has not articulated reasons why the claimed features do not require a drawing for understanding of the claimed invention. MPEP 608.02(d) and 37 CFR 1.83 requires (a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Any structural detail that is of sufficient importance to be described should be shown in the drawing. (Ex parte Good, 1911 C.D. 43, 164 OG 739 (Comm’r Pat. 1911).)
Applicant’s argument is also contradictory in that in page 8 and 9 of the remarks, applicant asserts that the size requirement of Toledo-Crow (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/01470139) would prevent from making modifications as it would provide unsatisfactory results. However, if there is no difficulty in understanding Applicant’s invention without a drawing, there would not be a reason why making modification to Toledo-Crow’s device would provide unsatisfactory results since the level of PHOSITA is someone having no difficulty in visualizing the components even without a drawing as admitted by Applicant in the Remarks.
Applicant's arguments filed on 4/2/2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts a PHOSITA would have no motivation to modify the laser ablation tool of Toledo-Crow for use in cleaning and repairing components in restricted areas of gas turbine engines. It should be noted that the use of the claimed device for the intended use is irrelevant because such use is not claimed.
Applicant also asserts that the Official Notice for the use of nano-second or pico-second pulsed laser for Toledo-Crow’s purpose of minimally invasive surgery is improper. MPEP 2144.03 states If applicant adequately traverses the examiner’s assertion of official notice, the examiner must provide documentary evidence in the next Office action if the rejection is to be maintained. The examiner finds Axelrod (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0282192) which uses nano-second pulsed laser for the purpose of minimally invasive surgery. Therefore, 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is deemed proper.
Applicant also asserts Toledo-Crow fails to teach a first motor and a second motor are coupled to an electrical cable, the electrical cable being disposed inside of the borescope or the compliant robot. Paragraph [0084] and figure 9A of Toledo-Crow sufficiently teaches this limitation. (movement commands delivered via signal bus within the head 900; figure 9A; paragraph [0084]).
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. The following claimed features are not shown in the drawings.
First and second motors mounted external to the laser ablation tool in claim 5.
Driveshafts in claim 5.
Pneumatic turbines in claims 7 and 8.
A gate in claim 12
Therefore, the abovementioned features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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(s) 1, 4, 6, 10-12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo-Crow (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2018/01470139).
As per claim 1, Toledo-Crow discloses a laser ablation tool comprising a laser source (140; figure 1) which produces a beam heaving a beam path (205; figure 2) and an ablation head (the assembly shown in figure 2), the ablation head comprising a housing (250) which on each side of the beam path is separated into a first half and second half portion, and at least a first Risley prism and a second Risley prism (Risley prism pair; paragraph [0063]; 210 and 225 in figure 2; 300 and 310 in figure 3) connected to the first half and second half portions of the housing (as shown; figure 2) the first and second Risley prisms being connected to a rotation mechanism (215, 230), so that the two Risley prisms can be moved relative to each other and the housing (servo control for each of elements 210 and 230; paragraphs [0068], [0069]; figure 2) so as to deflect the beam (as shown in beam path 205; figure 2) and wherein the laser ablation tool is connected to a borescope (connected to an endoscope; figure 1) or compliant robot with the head being connected to the distal end of the borescope or compliant robot, a first motor and a second motor are coupled to an electrical cable, the electrical cable being disposed inside of the borescope or the compliant robot (movement commands delivered via signal bus within the head 900; figure 9A; paragraph [0084]).
Toledo-Crow does not explicitly teach wherein: the laser source is nano-second or pico-second pulsed laser.
In the Non-Final Rejection dated 1/6/2026, the examiner made an Official Notice that it is well known to use nano-second or pico-second pulsed laser suitable for ablation or medical treatments. Axelrod (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2011/0282192) supports the prior common knowledge statement to use nano-second pulsed laser for medical application. Axelrod is related prior art to Toledo-Crow in that it deals with an endoscope that can be used for surgical use. Axelrod teaches using 10 nano-second pulsed laser to generate photoacoustic waves that is weakly focused into tissue to avoid tissue overheating (paragraph [0105]). Axelrod’s endoscope is a multimodal endoscope that uses optical switcher to use different modes of laser (abstract). Therefore, Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Toledo-Crow’s laser source to incorporate Axelrod’s multimode laser source including 10-ns laser pulse for photoacoustic mode to allow both multispectral imaging and very short-pulsed laser surgery (Axelrod, paragraph [0091]).
As per claim 4, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod, discloses the laser ablation tool according to claim 1. Toledro-Crow further discloses wherein the at least one motor is a pair of motors mounted within the head, with a first motor connected to the first Risley prism and a second motor connected to the second Risley prism (motors 215 and 230 connected to elements 210 and 225; figure 2).
As per claim 6, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod, discloses the laser ablation tool according to claim 1. Toledro-Crow further discloses wherein the at least one motor of the first and second Risley prism is piezoelectric drives (via ultrasonic motor, which is inherently a piezeoelectric drive; paragraph [0084]).
As per claim 10, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod, discloses the laser ablation tool according to claim 1. Toledro-Crow further discloses wherein the at least one motor is coupled to encoders to monitor a position of the first and second Risley prism (angular position sensors 220 and 235; figure 2).
As per claim 11, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod, discloses the laser ablation tool according to claim 10. Toledro-Crow further discloses wherein the encoders are coupled to a controller that is coupled to an output of the laser so that the beam is only outputted at certain positions of the two respective Risley prisms (rotation angles are controlled in a servo control positioning arrangement by the motors 215 and 230 and angular position sensors 220 and 235 to deliver the light beam 205 to desired angles; paragraphs [0068], [0069]; motor rotation commands are sent to a motor controller; [0108]).
As per claim 12, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod, discloses the laser ablation tool according to claim 10. Toledro-Crow further discloses wherein the encoders are coupled to a gate on the output of the laser (via scanner control 135 activating laser and control laser light intensity, i.e., inherently having a gate; paragraph [0066]) such that the output of the laser and the position of the Risley prisms is controlled to direct the beam to fixed known point (the wedges can be rotated to direct the light beam to every point in the circular area defined by two pairs of angles; paragraph [0111]).
As per claim 14, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod, discloses a method of ablating a component comprising: coupling a laser to the ablation head according to claim 1, positioning the laser ablation head in proximity to an area that requires ablation (establishing a position relative to the target tissue in step 1730; figure 17), starting the laser along with initiating the at least one motor for driving the prisms (controlling at least one optical element in the housing with at least one actuating arrangement in step 1770; figure 17), using the laser and passing the beam through a cavity containing spinning Risley prisms (as shown; figure 2) and scanning a laser beam across the a surface of the component to be scanned (scanner control 135 activating laser 140; paragraph [0066]).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo-Crow in view of Axelrod and Diwinsky (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0246912).
As per claims 2 and 3, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod, discloses the laser ablation tool according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the ablation tool further comprises a lens and an aperture (focusing element 240 and distal end of housing 250 to allow light beam 205 to discharge). Toledo-Crow does not explicitly teach wherein the ablation tool further comprises an angled mirror. Diwinsky (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2020/0246912) is a related prior art in that it deals with a laser ablation tool. Diwinsky teaches the ablation tool having a lens (320; figure 3), an angled mirror (324) and an aperture (312) to direct the laser beam (paragraphs [0004], [0007]). In order to further provide steering of the laser beam path, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Toledo-Crow’s device to incorporate Diwinsky’s angled mirror to allow further steering of the laser beam path.
Claim(s) 5 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toredo-Crow in view of Axelrod and Chu (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0057656).
As per claim 5, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod, discloses the laser ablation tool according to claim 1. Toledo-Crow does not explicitly teach wherein the rotation mechanism comprises a first and second motors that are mounted external to the laser ablation tool and are coupled to the first and second Risley prisms via respective driveshafts. Chu (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0057656) is a related prior art in that it deals with a rotation mechanism for a Risley prism pair. Chu teaches wherein the rotation mechanism comprises a first and second motors that are mounted external to the laser ablation tool and are coupled to the first and second Risley prisms via respective driveshafts (motors 342 and 344 are connected to prisms 346 and 348 through hollow shafts 358, 360 and motors 342, 344 are located outside of the laser system tool head (laser ablation tool) within hollow shaft 360 that contains the Risley prisms 346, 348; figure 5). Chu teaches the drive motors located external to the hollow shaft containing the laser system allows to independently transmit actuator rotation without blocking optical path (paragraph [0065]) and achieve sufficient mechanical precision while still having a diameter less than 1.0 cm (paragraph [0066]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Toledo-Crow’s rotation mechanism to incorporate Chu’s coaxial motors coupled with hollow shafts to drive the Risley prism because they allow to independently transmit actuator rotation without blocking optical path (paragraph [0065]) and achieve sufficient mechanical precision while still having a diameter less than 1.0 cm (paragraph [0066]).
As per claim 9, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod, discloses the laser ablation tool according to claim 1. Toledo-Crow does not explicitly teach wherein the rotation mechanism is coupled to a gearing system. Chu (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0057656) is a related prior art in that it deals with a rotation mechanism for a Risley prism pair. Chu teaches wherein the rotation mechanism is coupled to a gear to independently transmit actuator rotation of drive motors to rotation of prisms about central axis without blocking the optical path (paragraph [0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Toledo-Crow’s rotation mechanism to incorporate Chu’s gearing system because as Chu teaches, the gearing mechanism can independently transmit actuator rotation of drive motors to rotation of prisms about central axis without blocking the optical path (paragraph [0061]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo-Crow in view of Axelrod and Toyosawa (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0252862).
As per claims 7-8, Toledo-Crow, in view of Axelrod discloses the laser ablation tool according to claim 1. Toledo-Crow does not explicitly teach wherein the rotation mechanism comprises separate pneumatic turbines that are connected to the first and second prisms and are driven to rotate by directing a fluid to flow against them (claim 7) and wherein the pneumatic turbines are supplied with separate fluid supplies to drive each turbine (claim 8).
Toyosawa (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2017/0252862) is a related prior art in that it deals with a drive system for a wedged prism, i.e., Risley prism. Toyosawa teaches an air turbine to drive the wedged prism which drives a turbine by directing fluid against them (paragraph [0165]). Toyosawa teaches the air turbine allows the deflection optical system to be made small and lightweight (paragraph [0014]) and cope with heat generation of the optical system (paragraph [0039]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to modify Toledo-Crow’s each of the drive motors to incorporate Toyosawa’s air turbine as it allows the deflection optical system to be made small and lightweight (paragraph [0014]). It should be noted that each of Toledo-Crow’s two motors has servo control and a person of ordinary skill in the art would make the modification to have two separate pneumatic turbines supplied with separated air to allow such servo control.
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 SANG K KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1324. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/SANG K KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights