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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species 1A and Species 2A in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
i. Regarding Claims 1-14, “a illumination light beam” in Lines 1-2 in Claim 1 should be “an illumination light beam”. This likewise needs fixed in the preambles of Claims 2-14.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Patent Application 2013048864 awarded to Suzuki, hereinafter Suzuki, as applied to the claims above, 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 Claims 1-2 and 13, Suzuki teaches a method of multiplexing a multi-spot pattern of laser light beams with a illumination light beam (Para. 0006) comprising: directing a laser light beam (light from treatment laser beam 31, Para. 0012) to an optical element for collimating the laser light beam (collimator lens 51, Fig. 1), the laser light beam having a wavelength contained within at least one of two narrow bands of an electromagnetic spectrum of light (Para. 0013, 532 nm); directing the collimated laser light beam to a diffractive optical element (DOE) (Fig. 1, DOE 60) configured to create a multi-spot laser pattern of laser light beams (Para. 0018); directing the multi-spot pattern of laser light beams to a beamsplitter (Fig. 1, dichroic mirror 56, Para. 0017, “Equipped with The dichroic mirror 56 substantially reflects 532 nm, which is the wavelength of the treatment laser light, reflects red aiming light to some extent, and transmits white light from the illumination light source 21 to some extent, that is, loss of the treatment laser light as much as possible It has the characteristic of being combined coaxially with the illumination light”); directing an illumination light (illumination source 21) beam to the beamsplitter (Fig. 1, Para. 0017), wherein the beamsplitter is configured to reflect the at least two narrow bands of the electromagnetic spectrum of light and transmit portions of the electromagnetic spectrum of light not contained within the at least two narrow bands of the electromagnetic spectrum, thereby multiplexing the multi-spot pattern of laser light beams and a transmitted illumination beam (Para. 0017, “Equipped with The dichroic mirror 56 substantially reflects 532 nm, which is the wavelength of the treatment laser light, reflects red aiming light to some extent, and transmits white light from the illumination light source 21 to some extent, that is, loss of the treatment laser light as much as possible It has the characteristic of being combined coaxially with the illumination light”); directing the multiplexed multi-spot pattern of laser light beams and transmitted illumination beam to a condensing lens for focusing the multiplexed multi-spot pattern of laser light beams and transmitted illumination beam (projection lens 25, Fig. 1). Amitai does not teach directing the multiplexed multi-spot pattern onto an interface plane of a proximal end of a multi-core optical fiber cable, or wherein the multi-core optical fiber cable comprises: a first outer core surrounded by an outer-core cladding; and a plurality of inner cores arranged within the outer core in a pattern that substantially matches the multi-spot pattern of laser light beams, wherein each inner core in the plurality of inner cores is surrounded by an inner-core cladding, or directing, at the distal end of the multi-core optical fiber cable, the multiplexed multi-spot pattern of laser light beams and transmitted illumination beam onto a lens in a probe tip, wherein the lens translates a geometry of the multiplexed multi-spot laser pattern of laser light beams and illumination beam from the distal end of the multi-core optical fiber cable onto a target surface.
However, in the art of laser treatments (Para. 0064), Brennan teaches the usage of a multi-light system with a lens in a treatment tip to provide the pattern onto a target surface (Para. 0062) 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 Suzuki by Brennan, i.e. by directing the output of Amitai to a multicore fiber of Brennan that provides illumination to the outer core and the treatment beams to the inner core as taught in Brennan, 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) to create a pattern on the target surface (Para. 0024), and wherein the generated laser beams are focused on the input end of a 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 Suzuki 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 Suzuki modified by Brennan further by Mordaunt, i.e. by using multiple inner cores for the aiming and treatment lasers, 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 3, Suzuki in view of Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the method of multiplexing a multi-spot pattern of laser light beams with a illumination light beam of claim 2, further comprising: selecting, for the multi-core optical fiber cable, a first material for the first outer core, a second material for the outer-core cladding, a third material for the plurality of inner cores, and a fourth material for the inner-core cladding (The Examiner notes that as the combination teaches the components, each of these components will have a material).
Regarding Claim 4, Suzuki modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the method of multiplexing a multi-spot pattern of laser light beams with a illumination light beam of claim 3, further comprising: selecting the condensing lens to focus each of the laser beams in the multiplexed multi-spot pattern of laser light beams onto an interface with a respective inner core in the plurality of inner cores (Mordaunt Para. 0038), wherein a spot size of each of the focused laser beams, an angular spread of each of the focused laser beams, a refractive index of the inner core, and a refractive index of the outer core causes the laser light beams to spatially fill and propagate the plurality of inner cores for the length of the multi-core optical fiber cable (Brennan Para. 0072).
Regarding Claim 8, Suzuki modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the method of multiplexing a multi-spot pattern of laser light beams with a illumination light beam of claim 1, wherein the multi-core optical fiber cable comprises: a first outer core surrounded by an outer-core cladding; and a plurality of inner cores arranged within the outer core in a pattern that substantially matches the multi-spot pattern of laser light beams (Mordaunt Para. 0024).
Regarding Claim 14, Suzuki modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the method of multiplexing a multi-spot pattern of laser light beams with a illumination light beam of claim 1. Suzuki further teaches wherein the method further comprises: adjusting an intensity of the surgical treatment beam and an intensity of the aiming beam are adjusted to produce a clear multiplexed multi-spot laser pattern of laser light beams and illumination beam on the surface (Para. 0018).
Claims 5-7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP Patent Application 2013048864 awarded to Suzuki, hereinafter Suzuki, as applied to the claims above, 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, further in view of U.S. Patent Publication 20080108983 awarded to Nadolski et al, hereinafter Nadolski.
Regarding Claims 5-7 and 11-12, Suzuki modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the method of multiplexing a multi-spot pattern of laser light beams with a illumination light beam of claim 2. Suzuki does not teach selecting the condensing lens to focus the illumination beam as a light cone with a spot size that falls on the interface plane of a proximal end of a multi-core optical fiber cable, wherein the spot size falls incident on at least a portion of the first outer core, at least a portion of the plurality of inner cores, and at least a portion of the inner-core claddings. wherein the light cone includes a narrow half-angle portion of the light cone and a wide half-angle portion of the light cone, wherein a refractive index of the first outer core, a refractive index of the plurality of inner cores, a refractive index of the inner-core cladding, and an angle of the narrow half-angle portion of the light cone causes the illumination beam to spatially fill and propagate the length of the outer core, and an angle of the wide half-angle portion of the light cone causes the illumination beam to spatially fill and propagate the outer core for the length of the multi-core optical fiber cable.
However, in the art of illuminated laser probes (abstract), Nadolski teaches choosing a refractive index of the materials of the cladding and core of an inner and outer core that allows illumination light to traverse the outer core (Para. 0024, “The changes in the index of refraction between the center core 46, the outer core 42, and the cladding layer 48 give the center core 46 a lower Numerical Aperture (NA), and give the outer core 42 a much higher Numerical Aperture. This results in the center core 46 of the fiber only accepting light that has a narrow divergence angle, such as laser light, while the outer core 42 accepts light having a more divergent angle, such as the illuminating light from the source. This is depicted in FIG. 5 where the laser light 52 is shown entering the center core 46 and the illumination light 54 is shown entering the outer core 42 at the optic fiber proximal end 34”).
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 modified by Brennan and Mordaunt, i.e. by choosing the refractive indices of the cores and cladding in the manner of Nadolski, for the predictable purpose of combining the known technique of Nadolski to achieve the same result.
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Suzuki modified by Brennan and Mordaunt makes obvious the method of multiplexing a multi-spot pattern of laser light beams with a illumination light beam of claim 2. Suzuki does not teach selecting the condensing lens to focus each of the laser beams in the multiplexed multi-spot pattern of laser light beams onto an interface with a respective inner core in the plurality of inner cores, wherein a spot size of each of the focused laser beams, an angular spread of each of the focused laser beams, a refractive index of the inner core, and a refractive index of the outer core causes the laser light beams to spatially fill and propagate the plurality of inner cores for the length of the multi-core optical fiber cable, selecting the condensing lens to focus the illumination beam as a light cone with a spot size that falls on the interface plane of a proximal end of a multi-core optical fiber cable, wherein the spot size falls incident on at least a portion of the first outer core and at least a portion of the plurality of inner cores, wherein the light cone includes a narrow half-angle portion of the light cone and a wide half-angle portion of the light cone.
However, in the art of illuminated laser probes (abstract), Nadolski teaches choosing a refractive index of the materials of the cladding and core of an inner and outer core that allows treatment light to traverse the inner core (Para. 0024, “The changes in the index of refraction between the center core 46, the outer core 42, and the cladding layer 48 give the center core 46 a lower Numerical Aperture (NA), and give the outer core 42 a much higher Numerical Aperture. This results in the center core 46 of the fiber only accepting light that has a narrow divergence angle, such as laser light, while the outer core 42 accepts light having a more divergent angle, such as the illuminating light from the source. This is depicted in FIG. 5 where the laser light 52 is shown entering the center core 46 and the illumination light 54 is shown entering the outer core 42 at the optic fiber proximal end 34”).
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 modified by Brennan and Mordaunt, i.e. by choosing the refractive indices of the cores and cladding in the manner of Nadolski, for the predictable purpose of combining the known technique of Nadolski to achieve the same result.
Conclusion
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
Prosecution Insights