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 02/03/2026 is acknowledged and entered. Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument, see page 6, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the 112(f) interpretation of shielding member has been considered and is not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the claims have been amended to provide sufficient structure for the shielding member to prevent interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), however, the claims have been amended so that shielding member is further limited by a light-shielding portion where a light-shielding portion is interpreted under 112(f). Therefore, because the shielding member is further limited by a 112(f) limitation, which is the light-shielding portion, the shielding member would continue to be interpreted under 112(f) and the light-shielding portion would not provide sufficient structure for the shielding member because the light-shielding portion is interpreted under 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 02/03/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 6 have been withdrawn.
Regarding claim 2, the Applicant has not provided a rebuttal nor has the Applicant amended claim 2 to overcome the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Therefore, the previous 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2 is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Lines 1-2 of claim 5 should recite “The irradiation probe according to claim 1, wherein the shielding member is configured to…”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Shielding member in claims 1 and 5-6. Here the word “member” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by functional language “configured to prevent the leakage light…from traveling radially inward or a circumferential direction…”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Light shielding portion in claims 1 and 6. Here the word “portion” is a generic placeholder for the term “means”, is modified by functional language “configured to block leakage light”, and further is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Examples of a shielding member are provided in the specification on page 30, paragraph 2 and page 38, last paragraph where the shielding member may be a metal member, a metal material, copper-based material, a core member having an elastic modulus smaller than that of a metal material such as a synthetic resin material and a cover made of a metal material covering a surface of the core member, a reflective member (page 31, paragraph 1), or a plurality of dummy fibers (page 38, last paragraph). However, these are just examples of what a shielding member could be. Therefore, as best understood and therefore interpreted, any structure capable of preventing leakage light from travelling radially inward or in a circumferential direction is equivalent to a shielding member.
The specification does not recite explicitly a “light shielding portion”. Rather, examples of a shielding member are provided in the specification on page 30, paragraph 2 and page 38, last paragraph where the shielding member may be a metal member, a metal material, copper-based material, a core member having an elastic modulus smaller than that of a metal material such as a synthetic resin material and a cover made of a metal material covering a surface of the core member, a reflective member (page 31, paragraph 1), or a plurality of dummy fibers (page 38, last paragraph). However, the specification does not explicitly recite that a shielding member includes a light-shielding portion. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “a light-shielding portion” and whether it is a separate element from a metal member, a metal material, a copper-based material, a core member having an elastic modulus smaller than that of a metal material such as a synthetic resin material and a cover made of a metal material covering a surface of the core member, a reflective member, a plurality of dummy fibers, or another material/element altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, any structure capable of providing the function of blocking leakage light is equivalent to a light-shielding portion.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3-7 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. MPEP 2181 IV recites “A means- (or step-) plus-function limitation that is found to be indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on failure of the specification to disclose corresponding structure, material or act that performs the entire claimed function also lacks adequate written description and may not be sufficiently enabled to support the full scope of the claim. The principal function of claims is to provide notice of the boundaries of the right to exclude by defining the limits of the invention, and means-plus-function claims rely on the disclosure to define those limits. Accordingly, an inadequate disclosure may give rise to both an indefiniteness rejection for a means-plus-function limitation and a failure to satisfy the written description and enablement requirements of section 112(a) or pre-AIA section 112, first paragraph.”
The claim limitation “light-shielding portion” (in claims 1 and 6) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not explicitly recite “a light-shielding portion”. Rather, examples of a shielding member are provided in the specification on page 30, paragraph 2 and page 38, last paragraph where the shielding member may be a metal member, a metal material, copper-based material, a core member having an elastic modulus smaller than that of a metal material such as a synthetic resin material and a cover made of a metal material covering a surface of the core member, a reflective member (page 31, paragraph 1), or a plurality of dummy fibers (page 38, last paragraph). However, the specification does not explicitly recite that a shielding member includes a light-shielding portion.
Claims 3-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 1, 3-7 and 9-11 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.
Claim limitation “light-shielding portion” (in claims 1 and 6) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not explicitly recite “a light-shielding portion”. Rather, examples of a shielding member are provided in the specification on page 30, paragraph 2 and page 38, last paragraph where the shielding member may be a metal member, a metal material, copper-based material, a core member having an elastic modulus smaller than that of a metal material such as a synthetic resin material and a cover made of a metal material covering a surface of the core member, a reflective member (page 31, paragraph 1), or a plurality of dummy fibers (page 38, last paragraph). However, the specification does not explicitly recite that a shielding member includes a light-shielding portion. Therefore, it is unclear what is meant by “a light-shielding portion” and whether it is a separate element from a metal member, a metal material, a copper-based material, a core member having an elastic modulus smaller than that of a metal material such as a synthetic resin material and a cover made of a metal material covering a surface of the core member, a reflective member, a plurality of dummy fibers, or another material/element altogether. As best understood and therefore interpreted, any structure capable of providing the function of blocking leakage light is equivalent to a light-shielding portion.
Therefore, the claims 1 and 6 are indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 3-5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wells (US 2011/0295347 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 08/07/2025) in view of Wesberg (JP2015510142A with portions of an attached translation cited below)
Regarding Claim 2, Wells teaches an irradiation probe (Fig. 2C) comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers bundled together (Fig. 2C: fiber-optic bundle 253), each of the optical fibers including, as at least a partial section in a longitudinal direction, a leakage section configured to output leakage light radially outward (Shown in Fig. 2C-2G where light can be seen travelling radially outward from the central axis; [0107]: “In some embodiments, the plurality of optical fibers 232, 233, 234 and 238 include faceted ends (e.g., cleaved or polished ends), wherein the face or facet of each faceted end of the plurality of optical fibers 232, 233, 234 and 238 points in a different radially-outward and longitudinally angled direction with respect to the central axis such that light emitted from each faceted end (e.g., 235 and 239) travels in a direction that is at least partially radially outward from the central axis and intersects a different nerve or set of nerve pathways.”); and
a reflective member (metallic-coated optical fibers from [0108]) placed at least radially inward of the irradiation probe with respect to the optical fiber and configured to reflect the leakage light from the optical fiber ([0108]: “In some embodiments, electrical conductors 237 include a plurality of insulated wires (or metallic-coated optical fibers or the like) arranged radially around or within the outer plurality of fiber-optic cables 238…”. The metallic-coating acts as a reflective member.), wherein
each of the optical fibers has directivity ([0109-0111]: “FIG. 2G is a schematic side view of an optical fiber 248 in an implanted configuration 252. In some embodiments, fiber 248 is substantially similar to fiber 238 except that the faceted end 256 of fiber 248 reflects or diffracts light 235 out of fiber 248 through a window 255 in a radial or side ("side firing") direction of the fiber 248 (see, for example, waveguide 411 of FIG. 4).” The “side firing” side would have a higher intensity of leakage light than other radial directions which do not emit light.; See Figs. 2C, 2E-2G and Fig. 4),
the optical fibers are disposed apart from a central axis of the irradiation probe in radial directions different from each other (Fig. 2C: See fiber-optic cables 232, 233, 234, and 238), and
the optical fibers are bundled together in a posture in which leakage light to the specific radial direction from the leakage section is directed radially outward of the irradiation probe (Shown in Fig. 2C).
Wells appears to be silent to each of the optical fibers has directivity in which intensity of leakage light in a specific radial direction is higher than intensity of leakage light in another radial direction in a cross section intersecting an axial direction of the leakage section.
Wesberg, related to optical fibers, does teach that each of the optical fibers has directivity in which intensity of leakage light in a specific radial direction is higher than intensity of leakage light in another radial direction in a cross section intersecting an axial direction of the leakage section (Shown in Fig. 2G and described in [0038]: “FIG. 2G shows an optical fiber 110 with multiple emission sectors that may be designed at various locations in the cross section of the optical fiber 110. As illustrated by way of non-limiting example, the two opposite emission sectors 120B, 120C may have similar or different emission characteristics. The emitting sectors 120B, 120C may be at different angles to one another and may comprise more than one emitting sector. The emitting sectors 120B, 120C may be associated with different cores 130B, 130A, for example, configured to emit electromagnetic radiation 152B, 152A having different parameters (eg, wavelength, intensity).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Wells so that each of the optical fibers has directivity in which intensity of leakage light in a specific radial direction is higher than intensity of leakage light in another radial direction in a cross section intersecting an axial direction of the leakage section, as disclosed by Wesberg. It is known in the field of endeavor that the radiation intensity used depends on the treatment and purpose (Ex: cutting, ablation, different types of treatments and markings) ([0054 from Wesberg). Therefore, it would be advantageous for each of the optical fibers to have directivity in which intensity of leakage light in a specific radial direction is higher than intensity of leakage light in another radial direction in a cross section intersecting an axial direction of the leakage section, depending on the targeted area during treatment and treatment required ([0054] from Wesberg).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1 and 6 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 3-5, 7, and 9-11 would be allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Claim 1, Wells (US 2011/0295347 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 08/07/2025) teaches an irradiation probe (Fig. 2C) comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers bundled together (Fig. 2C: fiber-optic bundle 253), each of the optical fibers including, as at least a partial section in a longitudinal direction, a leakage section configured to output leakage light radially outward (Shown in Fig. 2C-2G where light can be seen travelling radially outward from the central axis; [0107]: “In some embodiments, the plurality of optical fibers 232, 233, 234 and 238 include faceted ends (e.g., cleaved or polished ends), wherein the face or facet of each faceted end of the plurality of optical fibers 232, 233, 234 and 238 points in a different radially-outward and longitudinally angled direction with respect to the central axis such that light emitted from each faceted end (e.g., 235 and 239) travels in a direction that is at least partially radially outward from the central axis and intersects a different nerve or set of nerve pathways.”), wherein:
each of the optical fibers has directivity ([0109-0111]: “FIG. 2G is a schematic side view of an optical fiber 248 in an implanted configuration 252. In some embodiments, fiber 248 is substantially similar to fiber 238 except that the faceted end 256 of fiber 248 reflects or diffracts light 235 out of fiber 248 through a window 255 in a radial or side ("side firing") direction of the fiber 248 (see, for example, waveguide 411 of FIG. 4).” The “side firing” side would have a higher intensity of leakage light than other radial directions which do not emit light.; See Figs. 2C, 2E-2G and Fig. 4),
the optical fibers are disposed apart from a central axis of the irradiation probe in radial directions different from each other (Fig. 2C: See fiber-optic cables 232, 233, 234, and 238), and
the optical fibers are bundled together in a posture in which leakage light to the specific radial direction from the leakage section is directed radially outward of the irradiation probe (Shown in Figs. 2C and 2E-2G).
Wells appears to be silent to each of the optical fibers has directivity in which intensity of leakage light in a specific radial direction is higher than intensity of leakage light in another radial direction in a cross section intersecting an axial direction of the leakage section.
Wesberg (JP2015510142A with portions of an attached translation cited below), related to optical fibers, does teach that each of the optical fibers has directivity in which intensity of leakage light in a specific radial direction is higher than intensity of leakage light in another radial direction in a cross section intersecting an axial direction of the leakage section (Shown in Fig. 2G and described in [0038]: “FIG. 2G shows an optical fiber 110 with multiple emission sectors that may be designed at various locations in the cross section of the optical fiber 110. As illustrated by way of non-limiting example, the two opposite emission sectors 120B, 120C may have similar or different emission characteristics. The emitting sectors 120B, 120C may be at different angles to one another and may comprise more than one emitting sector. The emitting sectors 120B, 120C may be associated with different cores 130B, 130A, for example, configured to emit electromagnetic radiation 152B, 152A having different parameters (e.g., wavelength, intensity).”).
Wells modified by Wesberg does not teach a shielding member extending along the leakage section and including a light-shielding portion positioned between adjacent ones of the optical fibers, the light-shielding portion being configured to block leakage light from traveling radially inward of the irradiation probe. Furthermore, on page 7 of the Applicant’s remarks, the Applicant pointed out that paragraph [0106] of Wells explains that the fiber ends are axially staggered so that emitted light is not obstructed by surrounding fiber-optic cables so that the light can reach the tissue being examined. Therefore, Wells emphasizes avoiding obstruction of emitted light and one of ordinary skill in the art would not have found it obvious to modify Wells combined with Wesberg so that there are circumferentially intervening light shields between adjacent fibers along the emission leakage region.
Therefore, as to Claim 1, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an irradiation probe comprising a shielding member extending along the leakage section and including a light-shielding portion positioned between adjacent ones of the optical fibers, the light-shielding portion being configured to block leakage light from traveling radially inward of the irradiation probe, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 7 and 9-11 are allowed by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Regarding Claim 6, Wells (US 2011/0295347 A1, which was disclosed in the IDS dated 08/07/2025) teaches an irradiation probe (Fig. 2C) comprising:
a plurality of optical fibers bundled together (Fig. 2C: fiber-optic bundle 253), each of the optical fibers including, as at least a partial section in a longitudinal direction, a leakage section configured to output leakage light radially outward (Shown in Fig. 2C-2G where light can be seen travelling radially outward from the central axis; [0107]: “In some embodiments, the plurality of optical fibers 232, 233, 234 and 238 include faceted ends (e.g., cleaved or polished ends), wherein the face or facet of each faceted end of the plurality of optical fibers 232, 233, 234 and 238 points in a different radially-outward and longitudinally angled direction with respect to the central axis such that light emitted from each faceted end (e.g., 235 and 239) travels in a direction that is at least partially radially outward from the central axis and intersects a different nerve or set of nerve pathways.”); wherein
the optical fibers are disposed apart from a central axis of the irradiation probe in radial directions different from each other (Fig. 2C: See fiber-optic cables 232, 233, 234, and 238), and a shielding member (Fig. 2C: electrical conductor 236 [0108]) is configured to prevent the leakage light from the leakage section of each of the optical fibers from traveling radially inward or a circumferential direction of the irradiation probe (single conductor 236 from Figs. 2C-2D and [0108] can be considered a shielding member that prevents light from traveling radially inward of the irradiation probe. Fig. 2D shows element 236 in the center of the fiber bundle 253 where element 236 is a single insulated wire ([0108]).).
Wells does not teach that the shielding member extends along the leakage section and including a light-shielding portion positioned between adjacent ones of the optical fibers in a circumferential direction of the irradiation probe.
Therefore, as to Claim 6, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious an irradiation probe comprising a shielding member that extends along the leakage section and including a light-shielding portion positioned between adjacent ones of the optical fibers in a circumferential direction of the irradiation probe, in combination with the rest of the limitations in Claim 6.
Other References Considered but not Cited
Scharf (US 20160151639 A1), related to an irradiation probe, teaches a radially outward delivered light in Figs. 1-3, 7, and 12.
Hetz (US 20160151639 A1), related to an irradiation probe, teaches in Fig. 134 a radially-emitting end 4616h where the light 4639 is spread out to cover a larger treatment area ([0671]).
Dumont (US 20250076201 A1), related to an irradiation probe, teaches in Fig. 3 a light blocking cladding (not shown but described in [0059]) that is disposed around the circumference of the light receiving conveyance structure 54 that is radially inside of the plurality of light source optical fibers 52 to avoid light transfer between the light receiving conveyance structure 54 and the plurality of light source optical fibers 52 ([0059]).
Pfleiderer (US 20170173349 A1), related to an irradiation probe, teaches in Fig. 8B that multiple light fibers may be coated from the inside with a reflective metal to direct the illuminated light externally radially outward rather than internally radially inward ([0037]).
Schaeffer (US 20120303011 A1), related to an irradiation probe, teaches in Fig. 1 proximal masked portions 62 and distal masked portion 64 which are adapted to block or prevent light from escaping the fiber optic 60 in a radial direction with respect to the lengthwise axis of the fiber optic 60.
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 JUDY DAO TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0085. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9:30am-5:00pm 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/JUDY DAO TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877