Final Rejection
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Following a non-final action, applicant filed a response on 6/27/2026 in which the specification was amended, claims 1, 4, 6, and 7 were amended, and claim 8 cancelled. Claims 1-7 and 9 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in the last line and second to last line, “out puts” is used twice. This should be one word. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2, 4-7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN 106299996 (“CN ‘996”) in view of CN 110492348 (“CN ‘348”), and further in view of CN 111600179 (“CN ‘179”), and further in view of (“CN ‘614”), and further in view of CN 204619199 (“CN ‘199”) (cited on 8/23/2023 IDS, translation provided with this action).
Regarding claim 1, CN ‘996 describes “a medical laser device ([0002]) cooperatively outputting a solid-state TM: fiber laser 201 (not a Q switched Tm:YAG laser, see modification below) and a green laser 101 (Fig. 1).”
First, it should be apparent that the Tm laser and the green laser are essentially in opposite configuration from that claimed. That is, in the claim the green laser goes straight through mirror 9 to the output fiber 11, while the Tm laser is reflected twice to the output at 14,9; in CN ‘996 it is the opposite. Compare Fig. 1 of each:
PNG
media_image1.png
354
552
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
276
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art to switch the green laser and Tm based laser as an obvious rearrangement of parts. See MPEP 2144.04 VI.C. Generally, a mere change in location without any change in operation or unexpected result is obvious. Here there is no unexpected result or difference in operation between the CN ‘996 way and the rearranged way; the beams are merely starting in different locations, and the result of both beams ending up combined on an output fiber is the same. Rather than an unexpected result the result is completely expected. The skilled artisan would understand that some minor changes need to be made (the reflectivity and transmission of the mirrors 102,202 need to be altered to match the appropriate wavelengths) but those changes would be simple to the skilled artisan.
CN ‘996 does not show “a shell extending in an axial direction, wherein an interior of the shell is fixedly connected with a first partition plate in a radial direction; one side face of the first partition plate is fixedly connected with a second partition plate,” as claimed.
However, it is clear that the various elements are not going to float in free space; they are part of a medical device after all, and will have at least the walls of the device. CN ‘348 (cited below for the Tm cavity) additionally clearly shows walls and an exit window around the cavity. CN ‘179 Figs. 2-5 further shows a medical laser device where the cavities are in the device with partition walls, and windows where the beams exit to move on through the system. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include partition walls like this as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. MPEP 2143 I.C. CN ‘996 arguably does not have partition walls, but these are plainly seen in the comparable medical laser device CN ‘179. A person of ordinary skill could add walls with predictable results because their use and function is simple, they merely separate out and protect different parts of the system. It would have been natural, in light of the arrangement shown in CN ‘996 Fig. 1, to have the walls follow the general shape of that system, and the walls (i.e. partition plates) follow that shape they will form the first and second partition plates as claimed, creating a shell around the lasers.
Following this modification, there will be “a TM:fiber (modified to YAG see below) generating cavity, a green laser generating cavity, and a light mixing cavity through the first partition plate and the second partition plate.” This is plainly seen by putting walls around each cavity as deemed obvious above. Compare the two figures reproduced above.
CN ‘996 also uses a TM:fiber laser, not a Q-switched TM:YAG laser with “a second totally reflective mirror, a TM: yAG rod, an acousto-optic Q-switch and a 5% spectrum output mirror are coaxially and fixedly mounted in sequence from a laser resonance end to a laser emitting end in the TM: yAG laser generating cavity,” as claimed.
CN ‘348 teaches that a Tm: fiber laser was known for medical purposes, [0006], but instead in Fig. 2 uses a Q-switched Tm:YAG rod laser having high reflector 1, acousto-optic Q-switch 2, Tm:YAG rod 11, and output mirror 7 (called a “high-resolution lens” but a person skilled in the art would understand this has to be an output mirror or else this would not operate as a laser, there would be no cavity) fixedly mounted in sequence. [0035], [0011]. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use this as the Tm laser because it provides good pulse power and tissue absorption, useful for lithotripsy and breaking up stones in the body. [0004], [0037]. CN ‘996 is clear that the purpose is to choose an appropriate laser for the desired type of therapy the laser will be used for according to your needs, [0008], so it would have been obvious to switch in a different medical laser that is useful for whatever needed purpose. This is particularly so because CN ‘348 already uses Tm:YAG instead of Tm:fiber. That the output of the output mirror is 5% is not given. The reflectivity of the output mirror is a typical design consideration of a laser cavity, and 5% is a normal amount that lets most of the beam resonate in the cavity while providing sufficient output for the application. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to choose 5% as an obvious optimization within prior art conditions. See MPEP 2144.05 II. The output reflectivity is a result effective variable because it impacts the output power of the laser, how much light escapes the cavity. Applicant gives no reason for choosing 5%, it has no criticality, it is simply a normal amount that is typically chosen. It therefore would have been obvious to optimize the value through routine experimentation to reach this amount.
CN ‘996 shows “a second 45° (102) totally reflective mirror for reflecting laser into the light mixing cavity, (following the modification it is) fixedly mounted at the laser emitting end of the TM: yAG laser generating cavity” (remember that the green laser 101 was switched with the Tm laser).
CN ‘996 shows the green laser 101 is a YAG rod but does not show the details, i.e. “a first totally reflective mirror, a neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet rod, a frequency doubling crystal and a green laser output mirror for outputting green laser into the light mixing cavity are coaxially and fixedly mounted in sequence from a laser resonance end to a laser emitting end in the green laser generating cavity.” CN ‘614 teaches that it was known to use a Nd doped laser and frequency doubler to create a green laser. It further shows the cavity is “a first totally reflective mirror 1, a Nd:YAG rod 5, a frequency doubling crystal 7, and a green laser output mirror 8 for outputting green laser into the light mixing cavity are coaxially and fixedly mounted in sequence from a laser resonance end to a laser emitting end in the green laser generating cavity.” See Fig. 1 and discussion. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use a cavity like in CN ‘614 as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. MPEP 2143 I.B. CN ‘996 does not really show the details of the green laser, just showing it as YAG laser 101 with frequency doubler. It does not even specify the dopant. CN ‘614 gives more specifics such as the dopant, and mirrors, details like those claimed. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the CN ‘614 details and the result would have been predictable. The skilled artisan looking at CN ‘996 would need to choose some kind of specifics for the laser, and it is reasonable to look at other references like CN ‘614 for those details. The result needed is to produce a 532 nm beam, and CN ‘614 does that. Nd for doping is widely known and predictable.
CN ‘996 shows “a first 45° totally reflective mirror (202) that is adjustably connected in the light mixing cavity, and a side wall of the light mixing cavity is coupled and connected with an optical fiber (301) for receiving laser reflected by the first 45° totally reflective mirror.” Again, there will be walls in the device as completed.
The above was the original rejection. As for the amendment material (bold below):
wherein the TM: yAG laser is of 2,025 nm wavelength, and the green laser is of 532 nm wavelength,
As mentioned above, both the CN ‘996 and CN ‘614 green laser is a 532 nm beam. It is not disclosed that this Tm:YAG laser is 2,025 nm. CN ‘996 gives a range for this laser of 1600-2200 nm, [0019], and is clear that the purpose is to choose an appropriate wavelength for the desired type of therapy the laser will be used for according to your needs, [0008]. CN ‘348 is already very close at 2000 nm. [0037]. 2025 therefore could be chosen depending on the user’s needs. There is no evidence of record that 2025 nm Tm:YAG laser is significantly different than a 2000 nm Tm:YAG laser such that the claimed value provides an unexpected result or criticality, therefore the claimed amount is considered obvious over the disclosed value. MPEP 2144.05 I.
wherein the second 45° totally reflective mirror reflects the TM: yAG laser with a center wavelength of 2,025 nm to the first 45° totally reflective mirror,
To continue, following the rearrangement the second 45° totally reflective mirror 102 will be totally reflective to the Tm:YAG laser, i.e. at 2,025 nm, and reflects towards the first 45° totally reflective mirror.
wherein the first 45° totally reflective mirror is a three-dimensional adjustable mirror with 2,025 nm wavelength total reflection and 532 nm wavelength anti-reflection, so that the TM: yAG laser is mixed with the green laser,
The first 45° totally reflective mirror is a three dimensional adjustable mirror 202/203. It is adjustable between states where it is totally reflective to one laser and totally transmissive to the other (following the rearrangement, would be reflective to Tm:YAG and transmissive to green as claimed). The Tm:YAG and green are again 2025 nm and 532 nm, respectively, as above. The first 45° totally reflective mirror 202 allows mixing of the two beams. CN ‘996 [0062].
While CN ‘996 appears to meet all of these features, it arguably differs from the claim to the extent that the mirror may require just one mirror that is both reflective at 2,025 and transmissive at 532 nm; CN ‘996 uses multiple elements 202/203. CN ‘199 shows in Fig. 3 a similar system with two laser beams 30,31 entering 45° reflector 20, where one comes from the side and is reflected and where the other comes from behind and is transmitted, the beams being mixed together for output. [0049]-[0052]. This reflector appears to be indistinguishable from the one of the present invention. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use this configuration instead of the CN ‘996 configuration as a simple substitution of one known element for another to yield predictable results. The CN ‘996 device is similar but arguably differs as above, but this difference is found in CN ‘199 as above. The result of the modification would have been predictable because both devices are doing the same general thing—taking two different beams and combining them for use in a medical device.
wherein the medical laser device cooperatively outputting solid-state Q-switch pulse TM:yAG laser and green laser is configured to selectively out puts the mixed laser of the TM: yAG laser and the green laser, or out puts any one of the TM: yAG laser and the green laser.
CN ‘996 further outputs the TM and green lasers such that it is configured to selectively output a mixed beam, the TM beam, or the green beam. The various figures show different operating states. Figs. 1 and 6 show a case where the outputs from lasers 101 and 201 are mixed, Figs. 3-4 show a case where only the laser 101 is output, and Fig. 5 shows a case where only laser 201 is output.
CN ‘199 likewise has this same goal, of permitting output of either laser beam or a mixed beam for different therapies. [0011], [0036], [0078].
Regarding claim 2, again after the rearrangement the green laser cavity and the light mixing cavity will be coaxial. The green and Tm cavities are in parallel. CN ‘614, which shows the green cavity, says there may be pumped by semiconductor lasers in a pentagonal relationship. [0030]. This meets comprising three sets of light source generators. CN ‘348, which shows the Tm cavity, shows in Fig. 2 three sets of palladium strips 5 around rod 11, emitting at 785 nm within the claimed range. [0023], [0029].
Regarding claim 4, the light source generator for pumping the Nd:YAG rod is not clearly disclosed. CN ‘614 uses diode pumps, i.e. a semiconductor laser, but does not give this range of wavelength. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the pump wavelength affects the output of the laser. The output depends on the absorption of the pump beam, and the crystal will absorb different wavelengths in different ways. The choice of wavelength therefore could be optimized by a person skilled in the art depending on how they need their output to be affected in the system.
Regarding claims 5-6, the plates will have windows through which the beams can be transmitted, the skilled artisan is not going to block the beams by the walls. The use of 2025 nm is obvious as discussed above re: claims 1.
Regarding claim 7, the frequency doubling crystal 103 receives a laser from 101 with a wavelength of 1,064 nm emitted by the neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet rod and outputs green laser with a wavelength of 532 nm in a frequency-doubled mode. CN ‘996 [0052], [0054]. As seen in CN ‘614, there is an output mirror lens 8. The point here is that we are getting a green output, so the skilled artisan would understand that the 532 nm beam is output and the 1064 nm beam is reflected at this mirror. While the claims 1% output is not given, the skilled artisan understands that the output mirror transmittance of a laser may be adjusted as needed to get the desired output, and it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to do so to get the desired output.
Regarding claim 9, as discussed above following the rearrangement and modification the the second 45° totally reflective mirror is a 2,025 nm wavelength TM: yAG laser total reflection mirror, this mirror is intended to fully reflect the TM:yAG beam.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN ‘996, CN ‘348, CN ‘179, and CN ‘614, and CN ‘199 as applied to claim 1, and further in view of CN 101689744 (“CN ‘744”).
Regarding claim 3, the references above do not show the pumps are arranged in an isosceles triangle as claimed. CN ‘744 shows various laser pumping configurations, and Fig. 9 shows that a rod may have three sets of pump sources arranged around the rod in an equilateral triangle (a special type of isosceles triangle) with any edge (which can be called a bottom edge) penetrating through the rod in a radial direction. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to include the pumps in this way as the use of a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way. The primary references show the claim, except do not show this particular pump configuration, but CN ‘744 shows that such a configuration was known in the art. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to apply this configuration in the primary references and the result would have been predictable because it is merely a manner of optical pumping, getting the pump light into the solid state medium, and this clearly does so and orients the pumps so that their beams go directly into the medium.
Response to Arguments
The response has been fully considered.
The amendments of the specification overcome the prior specification objection.
The amendments of claims 4, 6, and 7 overcome the prior 112(b) rejections.
The arguments against the cited art are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that CN ‘996 differs from the claimed invention because in the present invention there is used a specially designed first 45° total reflective mirror that exhibits selective optical behavior: total reflection at 2,025 nm and anti-reflection at 532 nm. This enables the device to selectively output either a mixed beam or the individual beams, permitting the addressing of different medical needs.
The argument is not persuasive. First, CN ‘996 does the same exact thing. As discussed above in the rejection, the reflector is adjustable into various states such that the device may selectively choose either a mixed beam or the individual beams, permitting the addressing of different medical needs. It does not teach away from the result, it does the same thing. It is a different type of mirror than that now claimed, but this is remedied by CN ‘199 now cited above.
It should be noted that applicant’s specially designed mirror appears to be no more than a dichroic filter or mirror, which of course are well known in the art and are highly transmissive to one wavelength and highly reflective to another. See generally Gao, Comprehensive Guide to What is Dichroic Mirror, https://chineselens.com/dichroic-mirrors/ (April 12, 2021); US 2012/0327371 [0032]-[0034] (cited previously). In any case, CN ‘199 is also cited above to meet the newly added material.
Applicant argues that the remaining references also do not cure these deficiencies, but such arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons as CN ‘996 is not so deficient.
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 James Menefee whose telephone number is (571)272-1944. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone 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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at (571) 272-1835. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of applications may be obtained from Patent Center. See: 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 A MENEFEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights