The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 11, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejections under 35 USC 112(b), the rejection remains. As stated in paragraph 27, “A configuration scheme may comprise one or more configuration parameters, including, for example, initial configuration parameters (e.g., default parameters).” So, if these are initial configuration parameters (e.g., default parameters), it is unclear why there is a need for “determine… an energy parameter” that is “generated” based on various other parameters. In other words, if default parameters are saved in the system and accessed, then when the user “obtain[s] a configuration scheme”, the default parameters are already determined, as they are a default. Therefore, the claim is unclear.
With regard to the applicant’s arguments beginning on page 8 of the remarks and directed at the rejection under 35 USC 102, it is noted that paragraph 19 of the application’s PGPUB 2024/0148437, it states that following:
The energy parameter may be defined as a parameter, expressed, for example, in Joules, and is associated with a pulse duration of the light emission by the endourological laser surgery device. The energy level may be defined as the intensity of light, which can range from dazzling to very low brightness. The pulse duration may be defined as the duration of light emission associated with a pulse. The energy parameter relates to the internal status of the laser device, and permits the user to execute the correct operation of this technical device. The energy parameter can vary in a dynamic manner, and is detected automatically.
Additionally, paragraph 158 states the following:
The user interface screen 800 optionally comprises the user interface object representative of beam intensity, which permits the user to adjust the beam intensity and/or to tune an aiming beam. The user interface screen 800 can include a user interface object (such as a “+” and “−” icons) for enabling user input to increase and decrease the beam intensity. For example, pressing the user interface object representative of beam intensity (such as an aiming beam icon) again or pressing any other part of the screen may save the current intensity and revert the user interface object back to its original shape.
The two paragraphs above are the only two paragraphs that discuss “intensity” within the application’s specification. Based on these passages, the “energy parameter” has units of Joules, and the intensity of light which defines the “energy level… can range from dazzling to very low brightness”.
As shown in Figure 9, which was discussed on page 4 of the previous Office action, the examples shown in this figure(s) illustrate a “surgery” setting (see numeral 176). In each, there is a power (i.e., 1.2 W in Figure 9A, 1.1 W in Figure 9B), and a total energy (i.e., 1.1 J). Additionally, numeral 50 illustrates a pulse duration, which in these examples is in continuous wave mode, but may be switched to a pulse mode. The user may provide different configurations within this preset, as illustrated by the original settings shown in Figure 9, which are then changed as illustrated in Figure 9G. In these changes, the total energy has been changed. The total energy provided by the system is inherently a setting that is determined based on a power and a pulse duration (see paragraph 31, which states that “For example, at a power level of 0.5 watts, the electromagnetic energy source would operate for a total of 10 seconds to deliver 5 joules of energy while the foot switch is on. It should be understood that the foot switch may be turned on for, as an example, five separated two-second periods for the total electromagnetic energy delivered to reach 5 joules.”). As stated by the amended claim, “the energy level is indicative of intensity of the light emission” (emphasis added). However, this fails to state that the energy level is the intensity (for which it would be assumed to mean amplitude, although the specification fails to state this clearly or define “intensity” other than it “can range from dazzling to very low brightness”). Therefore, the “total energy” (which equates to an energy parameter) is obviously, if not inherently, based on a combination of power (i.e., “an energy level”) and a pulse duration. By adjusting power or a pulse duration, various other parameters would be adjusted, which may include total energy. Based on this, it is noted that power is related to laser intensity (since laser intensity is defined as the power per unit area of a laser beam). Therefore, power is indicative of intensity.
For at least the reasons presented above, the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the following rejections apply.
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 14, 28 and 31 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.
Claims 14, 28 and 31 are rejected because “obtain a configuration scheme” and “determine, based on the configuration scheme” (see lines 8-9 of claim 14 as an example) is unclear and indefinite. Paragraph 27 of the PGPUB 2024/0148437, herein representative of the originally filed specification, states the following:
A configuration scheme may comprise one or more configuration parameters, including, for example, initial configuration parameters (e.g. default parameters). In one or more examples, the configuration scheme disclosed herein is for initialization of the configuration parameter(s). The configuration scheme permits the provision of a configuration which results in the determination (and, for example, monitoring) of the energy parameter associated with the light emission by the endourological laser surgery device, wherein the energy parameter is determined based on an energy level and a pulse duration for the light emission by the endourological laser surgery device. The configuration scheme is not any of the one or more modes disclosed here such as for Coagulation, Section, Ablation, and/or Prostate.
Additionally, paragraph 90 states the following:
The user interface screen 500 may be displayed on the display of the electronic device disclosed, for example based on the configuration scheme of the endourological laser surgery device, for example in conjunction with an activation of the endourological laser surgery device and/or of the electronic device disclosed.
It does not appear that any other detailed description of a “configuration scheme” is provided elsewhere in the specification. While this clearly illustrates a written description for this term, it is not clear from these passages and/or the claims what exactly this term means and encompasses. For example, paragraph 90 seems to possibly imply that the configuration scheme is merely an initialization of the system. However, paragraph 27 states that it may actually comprise default parameters, or a “provision of a configuration which results in the determination (and, for example, monitoring) of the energy parameter associated with the light emission”. Finally, paragraph 27 explicitly states that this term is “not any of the one or more modes”. Therefore, while it is clear what this term is not, it is not clear what it is. Therefore, this term within the claims is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of examination, this term is being interpreted to mean obtaining a preset that is associated with particular energy parameters as claimed.
To further illustrate the issue, as stated in paragraph 27, “A configuration scheme may comprise one or more configuration parameters, including, for example, initial configuration parameters (e.g., default parameters).” So, if these are initial configuration parameters (e.g., default parameters), it is unclear why there is a need for “determine… an energy parameter” that is “generated” based on various other parameters. In other words, if default parameters are saved in the system and accessed, then when the user “obtain[s] a configuration scheme”, the default parameters are already determined, as they are a default. Therefore, the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 14-17, 19-20, 24-26 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jones et al. (US Patent Pub. No. 2008/0276192).
Regarding claims 14 and 31, Jones discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) that controls an electromagnetic energy output system (see Abstract). Jones teaches “a laser to provide light emission” (see claim 14, line 2 – “Typical embodiments include an electromagnetic energy output device such as a laser handpiece 285 and further include, for example, a laser actuator 290. The laser actuator 290 may take a form of, according to one embodiment, a foot-operated switch that interacts with the laser interface 265 in accordance with signals received from the processor 245 in order to control the electromagnetic energy output device” – see paragraph 43). It is noted that “for endourological surgery” is intended use and does not structurally limit the claimed system or laser in any definitive way (Section 2114(II) of the MPEP states (with emphasis in the original), “’Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”; and this same section also states, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.”). Figure 13 also illustrates a processor (see numeral 245), a GUI display 275 and GUI 270 which is an input device, as well as both working and program memory 250 and 255 (reading on claim 14, lines 3-7). Regarding “obtain a configuration scheme”, “The screen of FIG. 1 (and, as another example, FIG. 2) comprises a PROCEDURES icon 175, which when pressed, may bring up a procedures screen, an example of which is shown in FIG. 9… In the illustrated example, the device is set at a power level of 5.0 W in a pulse mode with 20 ms pulse length and a 20 ms pulse interval.” As stated in paragraph 37, “Pressing one of the procedure icons may adjust or "preset" the electromagnetic energy output device according to settings listed on that procedure icon. For example, pressing (i.e., touching) a SURGERY icon 181 in FIG. 9 may set the electromagnetic energy output device to a power level of 1.2 watts in a continuous wave mode with a total energy to be delivered of 1.1 joules.” Therefore, this teaches that the processor is configured to obtain a configuration scheme (i.e., a procedure) and, based on the chosen procedure, the system utilizes a preset output power level (reading on “an energy level” in the claim) and in continuous wave mode which is changed from the original “20/20” which paragraph 36 states as meaning “20 ms pulse length and a 20 ms pulse interval” (all of which reads on “a pulse duration”). The total energy provided by the system is inherently a setting that is determined based on a power and a pulse duration (see paragraph 31, which states that “For example, at a power level of 0.5 watts, the electromagnetic energy source would operate for a total of 10 seconds to deliver 5 joules of energy while the foot switch is on. It should be understood that the foot switch may be turned on for, as an example, five separated two-second periods for the total electromagnetic energy delivered to reach 5 joules.”). These various parameters are displayed on the display as shown in Figure 9, and also can be shown on the display in the manner shown in Figs. 1 and/or 2 (noting that Figs. 1-2 and 9A are interpreted to read on and/or comprise “a first user interface object”). Additionally, this is all used to control the laser based on the chosen procedure and/or parameters, as described throughout the disclosure, and in paragraphs 36-38.
Regarding claim 15, Jones teaches “The illustrated embodiment further includes a simulated analog representation 60 (as, for example, with a thermometer, speedometer and the like) of the power level relative to a maximum possible power level setting” (see paragraph 23 and Figures 1-2 and 9A).
Regarding claims 16 and 32, based on the rejections above under 35 USC 112(b), it is unclear the distinction between “a configuration scheme” and “an operational environment” in the instant application’s disclosure, and therefore also within the claims. As stated in paragraph 29 of PGPUB 2024/0148437 (representative of the original specification), “The operational environment thus delivers the appropriate energy parameter for the endourological area which is to receive the light application” (emphasis added). This is the same function as claimed in the independent claims for the claimed ”configuration scheme”. Therefore, the “operational environment” in claim 16 is rejected over Jones for the same reasons described for the independent claims in relation to the ”configuration scheme” (see Figure 9 and paragraphs 36-38).
Regarding claim 17, Jones teaches “The illustrated embodiment further includes a simulated analog representation 60 (as, for example, with a thermometer, speedometer and the like) of the power level relative to a maximum possible power level setting” (see paragraph 23 and Figures 1-2 and 9A). As stated in paragraph 38, “For example, pressing the SURGERY icon 181 may display the screen shown in FIG. 9A”.
Regarding claim 19, it is noted that Figure 9A, which is displayed upon selecting an operational environment (e.g., “Surgery” in the example of paragraph 38), a user interface object 176 illustrates the representative operational environment.
Regarding claims 20 and 33, it is noted that the claims do not distinguish that a “mode of use” is distinct from either one of the claimed “operational environment” nor the “configuration scheme”. Therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as described for the configuration scheme of the independent claims, and as outlined in the rejection of claim 16. As stated in paragraph 32 of the PGPUB of the instant application, “one or more modes of use, including Coagulation, Section, Ablation, and/or Prostate”, which is correlated to those options shown in Figure 9 of Jones (i.e., coagulation shown in the bottom two slots, which is not an specific operational environment as illustrated by Gingivectomy or Frenectomy). Therefore, Jones reads on each of an operational environment and a mode of use being selectable. In a second interpretation of Jones, it is noted that “The illustrated graphical user interface further includes an energy mode icon 50, which both indicates and controls a mode of electromagnetic energy generation of the electromagnetic energy source” (see paragraph 24).
Regarding claim 24, Figure 1 illustrates that a given service energy level 35 is displayed and a given service pulse duration 30 is displayed. “[T]he illustrated embodiment further includes an average power indicator 115 that may display an average power level according to the power level of the electromagnetic energy source (shown by the power level indicator 55), the pulse interval (shown in the pulse interval icon 25) and the pulse length (shown in the pulse length icon 30)” (see paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 25, “The implementation shown in FIG. 1 further includes a total energy level icon 35, which, in the indicated implementation, may function as both a total energy level indicator and as an electromagnetic energy control icon. As a total energy level indicator, the total energy level icon 35 may display (depending upon context as described infra with reference to FIG. 5) an amount of electromagnetic energy already generated” (see paragraph 29).
Regarding claim 26, Jones teaches that “a user may be presented with a screen similar to that shown in FIG. 12, which may permit the user to select, for example, a display of operating time” (see numeral 230 in Figure 12).
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.
Claims 22-23 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Yang (US Patent Pub. No. 2019/0110845).
Regarding claims 22-23, Jones is described above with respect to claim 14. It is noted that Jones does not explicitly state that there is a user interface object representative of a frequency parameter, although it is noted that in Figure 1 of Jones there is a pulse interval 25 and a pulse length 30, which arguably provide an indication of frequency. However, assuming arguendo that this is not considered sufficient to read on the subject matter of claim 22, Yang teaches “a method of controlling a laser source to deliver laser energy through a medical device” (see Abstract). Paragraph 40 states that “As shown in FIG. 3A, user interface 40 on laser control unit 24 may display a first laser mode 70 and a second laser mode 72. The two laser modes 70, 72 may vary depending on the procedure being performed, and each laser mode may vary based on laser energy 74, frequency 76, pulse width 78, etc.” In other words, Yang explicitly teaches display and modification of laser frequency as a parameter in the control of a surgical laser device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing the invention to display and allow adjustment of frequency, among other parameter, as taught by Yang, and to include this adjustability in the system and methods of Jones, because “the laser energy may include different adjustable parameters based on the type of laser energy” (see paragraph 41) and “The shape and/or orientation of the laser energy may be modified based on the type of medical procedure” (see paragraph 35), illustrating that there are a multitude of laser parameters that may be desirable to allow adjustability for in a laser system (i.e., frequency, beam shape, etc.) and these may depend on multiple different factors (e.g., the type of medical procedure), and adding and including these different parameters increases utility of any laser system.
Regarding claim 27, it is re-iterated that Jones does not explicitly state that there is a user interface object representative of a frequency parameter, although it is noted that in Figure 1 of Jones there is a pulse interval 25 and a pulse length 30, which arguably provide an indication of frequency. Meanwhile, Yang teaches explicitly to provide “frequency” as an adjustable parameter. See above rejection of claims 22 and 23 for further detail and motivation to combine. Furthermore, it is noted that Jones teaches an average power 115 and a total power 55, which are indicative of the power of light emitted by the laser during the use of the laser. Paragraph 29 states that the “average power indicator 115 that may display an average power level according to the power level of the electromagnetic energy source (shown by the power level indicator 55), the pulse interval (shown in the pulse interval icon 25) and the pulse length (shown in the pulse length icon 30)”, which means that it is based on the energy level and frequency parameters, and it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that by the combination with Yang, an explicit adjustment to frequency would change the average and total power delivered.
Claims 18, 21 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones as applied to claims 16 and 20 above, and further in view of Mitchell (US Patent Pub. No. 2020/0163715).
Regarding claims 18 and 21, Jones is described above with respect to claim 16 and 20. Jones illustrates in Figure 1 the current settings and outputs of the laser, and is not explicitly stated as being effective working and/or optimization zones.
Mitchell teaches an exemplary simple slide bar user interface with dynamic pulsing, in accordance with embodiments of the present invention (see paragraph 39 and Figure 29). “The laser system has a user interface 410 to adjust system parameters and to control the laser energy emission. The user interface 410 is in communication with the controller 420. The controller operates the laser resonator 430 to provide the appropriate output selected via the user interface 410” (see paragraph 143). As stated in paragraph 286, “FIG. 29 illustrates a user input device in the form of a set of touch screen sliders…. For any inter-related parameter dependencies, for example q-switch pulse amplitude and q-switch period, the controller would determine the range limits and/or the mix of settings to achieve the desired outcomes as selected by the user.” By the controller determining and setting the range limits, this reads on a determination of “a first zone indicative of effective working”. By the controller determining a setting “the mix of settings to achieve the desired outcomes”, this reads on a determination of “a second zone indicative of optimization”. It is noted that Figure 29 illustrates a user interface in which “the range limits” are shown for power (e.g. low to high), thermal/dual mode (e.g., cold to hot), and tissue type, and an optimized zone is clearly shown/set for power and thermal/dual mode at an appropriate location along the slider.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include display of not the full range of laser operation but the system determined range limits for the desired outcome, and to show the system optimized setting for the desired outcome, as taught by Mitchell, within the system and methods of Jones, thereby increase ease of use for an operator by limiting the displayed range to only be within that which is of importance for the current operation.
Regarding claim 28, Jones discloses a graphical user interface (GUI) that controls an electromagnetic energy output system (see Abstract). Jones teaches “a laser to provide light emission” (see claim 14, line 2 – “Typical embodiments include an electromagnetic energy output device such as a laser handpiece 285 and further include, for example, a laser actuator 290. The laser actuator 290 may take a form of, according to one embodiment, a foot-operated switch that interacts with the laser interface 265 in accordance with signals received from the processor 245 in order to control the electromagnetic energy output device” – see paragraph 43). It is noted that “for endourological surgery” is intended use and does not structurally limit the claimed system or laser in any definitive way (Section 2114(II) of the MPEP states (with emphasis in the original), “’Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.’ Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990)”; and this same section also states, “A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987.”). Figure 13 also illustrates a processor (see numeral 245), a GUI display 275 and GUI 270 which is an input device, as well as both working and program memory 250 and 255 (reading on claim 14, lines 3-7).
Regarding “obtain a configuration scheme”, “The screen of FIG. 1 (and, as another example, FIG. 2) comprises a PROCEDURES icon 175, which when pressed, may bring up a procedures screen, an example of which is shown in FIG. 9… In the illustrated example, the device is set at a power level of 5.0 W in a pulse mode with 20 ms pulse length and a 20 ms pulse interval.” As stated in paragraph 37, “Pressing one of the procedure icons may adjust or "preset" the electromagnetic energy output device according to settings listed on that procedure icon. For example, pressing (i.e., touching) a SURGERY icon 181 in FIG. 9 may set the electromagnetic energy output device to a power level of 1.2 watts in a continuous wave mode with a total energy to be delivered of 1.1 joules.” Therefore, this teaches that the processor is configured to obtain a configuration scheme (i.e., a procedure) and, based on the chosen procedure, the system utilizes a preset output power level (reading on “an energy level” in the claim) and in continuous wave mode which is changed from the original “20/20” which paragraph 36 states as meaning “20 ms pulse length and a 20 ms pulse interval” (all of which reads on “a pulse duration”). The total energy provided by the system is inherently a setting that is determined based on a power and a pulse duration (see paragraph 31, which states that “For example, at a power level of 0.5 watts, the electromagnetic energy source would operate for a total of 10 seconds to deliver 5 joules of energy while the foot switch is on. It should be understood that the foot switch may be turned on for, as an example, five separated two-second periods for the total electromagnetic energy delivered to reach 5 joules.”). These various parameters are displayed on the display as shown in Figure 9, and also can be shown on the display in the manner shown in Figs. 1 and/or 2 (noting that Figs. 1-2 and 9A are interpreted to read on and/or comprise “a first user interface object”). Additionally, this is all used to control the laser based on the chosen procedure and/or parameters, as described throughout the disclosure, and in paragraphs 36-38.
Jones also teaches that “The illustrated graphical user interface further includes an energy mode icon 50, which both indicates and controls a mode of electromagnetic energy generation of the electromagnetic energy source” (see paragraph 24-27; see also Figure 3). This reads on “receive… a user input which is indicative of a selectin of a mode of use” and that the laser will be controlled based on this selection, which can be changed even after a configuration scheme/procedure is selected.
While Jones illustrates in Figure 1 the current settings and outputs of the laser, but does not teach a first and second zone of effective working and optimization, respectively.
Mitchell teaches an exemplary simple slide bar user interface with dynamic pulsing, in accordance with embodiments of the present invention (see paragraph 39 and Figure 29). “The laser system has a user interface 410 to adjust system parameters and to control the laser energy emission. The user interface 410 is in communication with the controller 420. The controller operates the laser resonator 430 to provide the appropriate output selected via the user interface 410” (see paragraph 143). It is emphasized here that Mitchell teaches the ability to choose a tissue type, which in this rejection of claim 28 is interpreted to be “an operational environment” (see Figure 29). As stated in paragraph 286, “FIG. 29 illustrates a user input device in the form of a set of touch screen sliders…. For any inter-related parameter dependencies, for example q-switch pulse amplitude and q-switch period, the controller would determine the range limits and/or the mix of settings to achieve the desired outcomes as selected by the user.” By the controller determining and setting the range limits, this reads on a determination of “a first zone indicative of effective working”. By the controller determining a setting “the mix of settings to achieve the desired outcomes”, this reads on a determination of “a second zone indicative of optimization”. It is noted that Figure 29 illustrates a user interface in which “the range limits” are shown for power (e.g. low to high), thermal/dual mode (e.g., cold to hot), and an optimized zone is clearly shown/set for power and thermal/dual mode at an appropriate location along the slider.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include display of not the full range of laser operation but the system determined range limits for the desired outcome, and to show the system optimized setting for the desired outcome, as taught by Mitchell, within the system and methods of Jones, thereby increase ease of use for an operator by limiting the displayed range to only be within that which is of importance for the current operation, and allowing for an additional parameter of tissue type to be used in the system determining the proper parameters for the desired outcome, thereby increasing utility of the overall system.
Claims 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones in view of Mitchell as applied to claim 28 above, and further in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 29, Jones in combination with Mitchell is described above with respect to claim 28. It is noted that Jones does not explicitly state that there is a user interface object representative of a frequency parameter, although it is noted that in Figure 1 of Jones there is a pulse interval 25 and a pulse length 30, which arguably provide an indication of frequency.
However, assuming arguendo that this is not considered sufficient to read on the subject matter of claim 22, Yang teaches “a method of controlling a laser source to deliver laser energy through a medical device” (see Abstract). Paragraph 40 states that “As shown in FIG. 3A, user interface 40 on laser control unit 24 may display a first laser mode 70 and a second laser mode 72. The two laser modes 70, 72 may vary depending on the procedure being performed, and each laser mode may vary based on laser energy 74, frequency 76, pulse width 78, etc.” In other words, Yang explicitly teaches display and modification of laser frequency as a parameter in the control of a surgical laser device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing the invention to display and allow adjustment of frequency, among other parameter, as taught by Yang, and to include this adjustability in the system and methods of Jones as combined with Mitchell, because “the laser energy may include different adjustable parameters based on the type of laser energy” (see paragraph 41) and “The shape and/or orientation of the laser energy may be modified based on the type of medical procedure” (see paragraph 35), illustrating that there are a multitude of laser parameters that may be desirable to allow adjustability for in a laser system (i.e., frequency, beam shape, etc.) and these may depend on multiple different factors (e.g., the type of medical procedure), and adding and including these different parameters increases utility of any laser system.
Regarding claim 29, it is noted that the slide bar in the GUI displayed image of Yang illustrates a range for frequency in Hz.
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 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 JAMES KISH whose telephone number is (571)272-5554. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10:00a - 6p 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, Unsu Jung can be reached at (571) 272-8506. 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.
/JAMES KISH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792