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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Applicant Arguments/Remarks”, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejections under U.S.C. 103 under Amitai, Mordaunt, and Brennan have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Amitai, Brennan, and Mordaunt, which is necessitated by applicant’s amendment.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/11/2025 regarding the Double Patenting rejection has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the Double Patenting rejection, the Examiner acknowledges the intent of the Applicant to file the TD upon allowance of the claims, the rejection cannot be withdrawn until either the amendments to the claims overcome the Double Patenting rejection, or the TD is filed. For future actions, if the Double Patenting rejection is the only rejection remaining, the Examiner will call to request that the TD is filed instead of filing a rejection solely on the Double Patenting.
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 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.
Regarding Claim 3, the term “port selector” meets all three prongs of the aforementioned three-pronged test. However, the term port selector is never defined as a physical component, merely as the function it performs. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner is moving forward interpreting that any optical element capable of “selecting a port” will meet the Claim language.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 13 of U.S. Patent No. 11771597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of Claim 1 are contained within the limitations of Claims 1 and 13.
Claims 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 3-5 of U.S. Patent No. 11771597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of Claim 6-7 are contained within the limitations of Claims 3-5.
Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11771597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of Claim 6-7 are contained within the limitations of Claim 6.
Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 11771597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of Claim 10 are contained within the limitations of Claim 8.
Claim 11 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11771597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of Claim 11 are contained within the limitations of Claim 12.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 11771597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of Claim 12 are contained within the limitations of Claim 16.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11771597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of Claim 13 are contained within the limitations of Claim 9.
Claim 14 and 15 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 11771597. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the limitations of Claim 14-15 are contained within the limitations of Claim 15.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication 0137769 award to Amitai et al, hereinafter Amitai in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20100228238 awarded to Brennan et al, hereinafter Brennan, further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20070265602 awarded to Mordaunt et al, hereinafter Mordaunt.
Regarding Claim 1, Amitai teaches a laser system, comprising: a first port for coupling with a multi-core optical fiber cable connected to a surgical handpiece (main laser unit 10, Fig. 1); a therapeutic laser source configured to provide a treatment laser beam (laser 8); an aiming laser source for providing an aiming laser beam (laser 16, 2nd Paragraph on Pg. 5, “An auxiliary, or second light-source unit 14 preferably includes a laser 16 or other light source, aligned with the main channel 4, including the path of operating beam 6, and in coordinated alignment with the main laser 10, such that the laser 16 preferably provides an aiming beam 18 for the operating beam 6 on the eye 12 of the patient”); a diffractive optical element (DOE) with a plurality of diffraction regions configured to receive the treatment laser beam and the aiming laser beam and to create a multi-spot laser pattern (diffraction grating unit 38, 4th Paragraph of Pg. 8, “These gratings 42a-42d function to split the single or main beam, both operating and aiming beams, into multiple sub-beams”); a condensing lens (second focusing lens 32).
Amitai does not teach a multi-core optical fiber cable comprising a proximal end coupled with the first port, wherein the condensing lens focuses the multi-spot laser pattern onto an interface in the first port, wherein the multi-spot laser pattern is focused on the proximal end of the multi-core optical fiber cable, wherein the multi-core optical fiber cable further comprises an outer core surrounded by an outer-core cladding and a plurality of inner cores contained within the outer core, and wherein the surgical handpiece comprises a probe tip coupled with a distal end of the multi-core optical fiber cable, the probe tip having a lens, wherein the distal end of the multi-core optical fiber cable terminates in an interface with the lens, and wherein the lens translates a geometry of the multiplexed multi-spot laser pattern from the distal end of the multi-core optical fiber cable onto a target surface, or wherein at least a portion of the treatment laser beam and at least a portion of the aiming laser beam of the multi-spot laser pattern are propagated through the multi-core optical fiber cable via the at least one same inner core of the plurality of inner cores.
However, in the art of laser treatments (Para. 0064), Brennan teaches the usage of a multi-light system with an outer core with cladding surrounds an inner core (outer core 920 with cladding 930 surrounding inner core 910, Fig. 9) where an illumination light is directed to the outer core (Fig. 9, Para. 0072, “The endoillumination light preferably propagates through intermediate cladding 920. Outer cladding 930 confines the endoillumination light in outer core 920”) while the treatment beam and a secondary beam are directed to the inner core (Fig. 9, Para. 0072, “Inner core 910 may propagate only a single mode, and the OCT light may propagate to the probe handpiece through inner core 910”, Para. 0064, “Another variation combines laser therapy and OCT functions in a single fiber and uses a second fiber for white-light endoillumination”) for the purpose of “enlarging the resulting spot size for, e.g., endoillumination” (Fig. 10c, Para. 0074).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amitai by Brennan, i.e. by directing the illumination to the outer core and the treatment beams to the inner core, for the predictable purpose of improving the illumination system as taught in Brennan Para. 0074 above.
Further, Mordaunt teaches the usage of a multicore optical fiber with a plurality of inner cores (Fig. 6, optical fiber output ends 54, Para. 0034) with a focusing lens at the end of the probe (Para. 0038, focusing optical element 96, Fig. 17), wherein at least an aiming beam and treatment beam are propagated through the at least one same core to improve visualization of the tissue to be treated (Para. 0026, ““If needed, aiming beam 42 can be injected into the optical fiber bundle 12 to visualize the location(s) at which beam 22 will impinge the target tissue”), and wherein the generated laser beams are focused on the input end of an multi-core optical fiber port (Para. 0011).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amitai modified by Mordaunt, i.e. by using the multicore optical fiber and probe coupling system of Mordaunt in the system of Amitai, for the predictable purpose of substituting one known delivery device to reach the same result. Further, it would have been obvious to modify Amitai modified by Brennan further by Mordaunt, i.e. by using multiple inner cores for the aiming and treatment lasers, and their combination, as taught in Mordaunt, instead of the singular inner core surrounded by the outer core as in Brennan, for the predictable purpose of further improving the visualization of Brennan as in Mordaunt through the addition of the aiming laser.
Regarding Claim 2, Amitai modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 1. Amitai further teaches wherein the system further comprises: an illumination system (light source 74, Fig. 1) that emits substantially white light (Paragraph 1 of Pg. 8, “Moving downstream toward the main channel 4, the illumination channel 20 advantageously includes a light source 74 such as a white light source”); a collimating lens that collimates the substantially white light received from the illumination system into an illumination beam (2nd collimating lens 80 receiving the white light from light source 74 , Fig. 1); a multiplexing beam splitter arranged to receive the illumination beam and the multi-spot laser pattern from the DOE (third optical element 34), and the usage of a condensing lens (second focusing lens 32). Amitai does not teach the specific configuration of the multiplexing beam splitter configured to reflect the multi-spot laser pattern towards the condensing lens and to transmit an illumination beam from the collimating lens towards the condensing lens, thereby multiplexing the multi-spot laser pattern and the illumination beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amitai, i.e. by configuring the known components in Amitai in the order presented in the limitation above, as it is merely a rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)) and no criticality to the particular arrangement is given by Applicant.
Regarding Claim 10, Amitai modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 1. Amitai further teaches wherein the system further comprises: a shutter arranged in a treatment laser beam path, the shutter configured to alternatively block and transmit the treatment laser beam (see Amitai 2nd Paragraph of Pg. 7, “Moving further downstream, there is disposed an intensity-reducing device 62, such as a variable attenuator, a lens 64, such as a focusing lens, a spatial filter 66, and a time controller shutter 68, for exposing the operating laser beam 6 to the eye 12 of the patient”).
Regarding Claim 11, Amitai modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 1. Amitai further teaches wherein the DOE comprises a movable linear stage with the plurality of diffraction regions (Fig. 7b’s Translation array, 4th Paragraph of Pg. 6, “The gratings G.sub.r G.sub.6 may be selected by the operator as desired and moved into place by rotation about an axis 52 or translation in the direction of the arrow 54”).
Regarding Claim 12, Amitai modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 1. Amitai further teaches wherein the system further comprises: a beam compressor arranged between the therapeutic laser source and the DOE (collimating lens 26), the beam compressor configured to collimate the treatment laser beam to a diameter selected based on the attributes of the DOE and a desired multi-spot pattern (Fig. 1, the Examiner notes that this is an inherent method effect of using the collimating lens 26. Where a reference discloses the terms of the recited method steps, and such steps necessarily result in the desired and recited effect, that the reference does not describe the recited effect in haec verba is of no significance as the reference meets the claim under the doctrine of inherency. Ex Parte Novitski, 26 USPQ2d 1389, 1390-91 (BdPatApp & Inter 1993)).
Regarding Claim 13, Amitai modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 1. Amitai does not teach wherein the therapeutic laser source is configured to produce the treatment beam having a wavelength equal to 532 nm (nanometers), and wherein the aiming laser source is configured to produce a laser aiming beam having a wavelength equal to 635 nm. Amitai does teach the usage of treatment beam and laser beam having similar wavelengths (Pg. 7, third paragraph) and the usage of laser wavelengths at 530 nm and 670 nm (Pg. 7, first paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Amitai, i.e. by using the wavelengths of 532 and 635 nm, since it has been held that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. Titanium Metals Corp. of America v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ (Please see MPEP 2144.05), and a criticality to the wavelengths is not provided.
Regarding Claim 14, Amitai modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 1. Amitai does not teach wherein the DOE creates the multi-spot pattern in a 2x2 array pattern. wherein the DOE creates the multi-spot pattern in a 3x3 array (4th Paragraph of Pg. 6, “For example, a grating in one assembly that split the laser beam into three vertical beams may be combined with another grating in a second assembly that split the laser beam into three horizontal beams, to create a pattern of nine sub-beams arranged in a 3x3 array”), and that the selection of a particular grating is at the operator’s will/need (Fig. 7b’s Translation array, 4th Paragraph of Pg. 6, “The gratings G.sub.r G.sub.6 may be selected by the operator as desired and moved into place by rotation about an axis 52 or translation in the direction of the arrow 54”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Amitai, i.e. by using a 2x2 array instead of a 3x3 array, as it is well within the skill of the artisan to choose the appropriate DOE for a particular purpose, as shown by the citation above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication 0137769 award to Amitai in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20100228238 awarded to Brennan and U.S. Patent Publication 20070265602 awarded to Mordaunt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20160025933 awarded to Benistry et al, hereinafter Benistry.
Regarding Claim 3, Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of claim 1. Amitai further teaches wherein the surgical handpiece comprises a first laser probe assembly (main laser unit 10), and wherein the laser system further comprises: a second port for coupling with a second laser probe assembly (auxiliary unit 16, Fig. 1). Amitai does not teach a port selector; wherein the therapeutic laser source is configured to direct the treatment laser beam to the port selector, the port selector configured to selectively direct the treatment laser beam toward the first port or the second port.
However, in the art of optical laser therapy, Benistry teaches the usage of a dual port system (abstract) with a port selector (Fig. 9, switching means 56) for the purpose of “permit(ing) an existing medical laser unit 10 to be retrofitted with an adaptor 15 to provide more flexible operation” (Para. 0066).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt by Benistry, i.e. by using a dual port system as in Benistry in the device of Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt, for the reasoning provided in Para. 0066 of Benistry above.
Claims 4 and 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication 0137769 award to Amitai in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20100228238 awarded to Brennan, U.S. Patent Publication 20070265602 awarded to Mordaunt, and US Patent Publication 20160025933 awarded to Benistry as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US Patent 6932807 awarded to Tomita et al, hereinafter Tomita.
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Amitai in view of Brennan, Mordaunt, and Benistry makes obvious the laser system of Claim 3. Amitai does not teach wherein the aiming laser source is a first aiming laser source and the aiming laser beam is a first aiming laser beam and wherein the laser system further comprises a second aiming laser source configured to provide a second aiming laser beam to the second port further comprising a focusing lens arranged to receive the treatment laser beam and the second aiming laser beam and focus the treatment laser beam and the second aiming laser beam to the second port and onto an interface with an optical fiber of the second laser probe assembly.
However, in the art of ophthalmological surgery, Tomita teaches the usage of a dual aiming laser system focused to an intended site to improve the targeting of the treatment system (Col. 1, Lines 10-28, “For treatment for aftercataract and so on of a patient's eye, there conventionally has been used a laser treatment apparatus (laser operation equipment) for irradiating an affected part of the patient's eye with a treatment laser beam of pulse wave. The apparatus of this kind is designed to vaporize and crush the tissue of the affected part by focusing the treatment laser beam on a desired point (an area to be treated) of the affected part, thereby forming plasma to generate shock waves. Accordingly, the importance is to precisely focus the treatment laser beam on the desired point. For achieving this purpose, there has been known a method of focusing a treatment laser beam on a desired point after irradiating two (or more) visible aiming beams so as to coincide with each other (i.e., to overlap two images of the aiming beams) at the desired point on which the treatment laser beam is to be focused. It is to be noted that the coincidence of two aiming beams at the desired point for the focusing of the treatment laser beam on the desired point is referred hereinafter to as "sighting"”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Amitai in view of Brennan, Mordaunt, and Benistry by Tomita, i.e. by using the two aiming laser system of Tomita in Amitai in view of Brennan, Mordaunt, and Benistry, for the predictable purpose of improving the targeting of the treatment system as set forth in Tomita above.
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being over WO Publication 0137769 award to Amitai in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20100228238 awarded to Brennan and U.S. Patent Publication 20070265602 awarded to Mordaunt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent 5815626 awarded to Kuba et al, hereinafter Kuba.
Regarding Claim 6 and 8, Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 1. Amitai does not teach a beam detector or a power monitor, wherein a portion of the treatment laser beam is directed to the beam detector by a beam splitter.
However, Kuba teaches: a power monitor (monitor 15) capable of detecting the beam; and a beamsplitter (beam splitter 14) arranged to receive the treatment laser from the therapeutic laser source and direct a portion of the treatment laser to the power monitor (Fig. 10, Col. 21, Lines 38-53, “In the optical transmission device 800 shown in FIG. 10, a reference number 14 designates a laser beam splitter for transmitting a part of the laser beam 70 to the optical fiber 9. A reference number 15 denotes an incident laser beam monitor device for detecting the power of the laser beam 70 after the laser beam 70 is passed through the laser beam splitter 14. The incident laser beam monitor device 15 is placed so that the distance between a laser beam detection plane of the monitor device 15 and the laser beam splitter 14 is approximately equal to the distance between the incident side plane of the optical fiber 9 and the laser beam splitter 14. For example, the position of the laser beam and the diameter of the laser beam are calculated by using the monitor device 15 which detects the power of the laser beam 70 after the laser beam 70 is passed through the laser beam splitter 14”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt by Kuba, i.e. by using the power monitoring system of Kuba and adding additional beam detectors in the system of Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt, for the predictable purpose of combining known prior art elements to similar device to improve them in the same way, i.e. by monitoring the power/detecting the beam of the laser.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication 0137769 award to Amitai in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20100228238 awarded to Brennan, U.S. Patent Publication 20070265602 awarded to Mordaunt, and US Patent Publication 20160025933 awarded to Benistry as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US Patent 5815626 awarded to Kuba et al, hereinafter Kuba.
Regarding Claim 7, Amitai in view of Brennan, Mordaunt, and Benistry makes obvious the laser system of Claim 3. Amitai does not teach further comprising: a first beam detector, wherein a portion of the treatment laser beam is directed to the first beam detector by a first beam splitter when the port selector directs the treatment laser beam toward the first port; a second beam detector, wherein a portion of the treatment laser beam is directed to the second beam detector by a second beam splitter when the port selector directs the treatment laser beam toward the second port.
However, Kuba teaches: a power monitor (monitor 15) capable of detecting the beam; and a beamsplitter (beam splitter 14) arranged to receive the treatment laser from the therapeutic laser source and direct a portion of the treatment laser to the power monitor (Fig. 10, Col. 21, Lines 38-53, “In the optical transmission device 800 shown in FIG. 10, a reference number 14 designates a laser beam splitter for transmitting a part of the laser beam 70 to the optical fiber 9. A reference number 15 denotes an incident laser beam monitor device for detecting the power of the laser beam 70 after the laser beam 70 is passed through the laser beam splitter 14. The incident laser beam monitor device 15 is placed so that the distance between a laser beam detection plane of the monitor device 15 and the laser beam splitter 14 is approximately equal to the distance between the incident side plane of the optical fiber 9 and the laser beam splitter 14. For example, the position of the laser beam and the diameter of the laser beam are calculated by using the monitor device 15 which detects the power of the laser beam 70 after the laser beam 70 is passed through the laser beam splitter 14”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Amitai in view of Brennan, Mordaunt, and Benistry by Kuba, i.e. by using the power monitoring system of Kuba and adding additional beam detectors in the system of Amitai in view of Brennan, Mordaunt, and Benistry, for the predictable purpose of combining known prior art elements to similar device to improve them in the same way, i.e. by monitoring the power/detecting the beam of the laser.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication 0137769 award to Amitai in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20100228238 awarded to Brennan and U.S. Patent Publication 20070265602 awarded to Mordaunt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20070282312 awarded to Rathjen, hereinafter Rathjen.
Regarding Claim 9, Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 1. Amitai does not teach an optical element in a path of the treatment laser beam configured to transform a horizontally polarized treatment beam from the therapeutic laser source into a vertically polarized treatment beam.
However, Rathjen teaches the usage of a half-wave plate for repolarizing a beam for the purposes of improving the positioning of a laser (Para. 0025).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt by Rathjen, i.e. by using the half-wave plate for repolarizing the beam, as Rathjen teaches the advantage of using the half-wave plate for the purposes of improving beam positioning and orientation.
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO Publication 0137769 award to Amitai in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20100228238 awarded to Brennan and U.S. Patent Publication 20070265602 awarded to Mordaunt as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20140180264 awarded to Diao et al hereinafter Diao.
Regarding Claim 15, Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 14. Amitai does not teach wherein the plurality of inner cores contained within the outer core form a 2x2 array that matches the 2x2 multi-spot pattern from the DOE.
However, Diao does teach matching a multiplexed, multi-spot pattern with the cores of a fiber bundle (Para. 0033).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt by Diao, i.e. by having inner cores matching the multi-spot pattern, for the predictable purpose of simply substituting one known method of projecting a multi-spot pattern for another.
Regarding Claim 16, Amitai modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the laser system of Claim 1. Amitai does not teach wherein each spot of the multi-spot laser pattern is transmitted through a single core of the multi-core optical fiber cable.
However, Diao teaches that the multi-spot pattern can go through a single core of an optical fiber (Para. 0036, “multi-spot/single fiber surgical probe).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before to further modify Amitai in view of Brennan and Mordaunt by Diao, i.e. by directing the multi-spot pattern down one of the fibers of the fiber bundle, as Diao teaches that it is possible in a single core fiber, and there is no difference in treatment whether the used core is surrounded by unused optical fibers or not.
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 Jess Mullins whose telephone number is (571)-272-8977. The examiner can normally be reached between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST M-F.
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 number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at (866)-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call (800)-786-9199 (In USA or Canada) or (571)-272-1000.
/JLM/
Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/UNSU JUNG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792