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 Group 2 (claims 11-21, 26 and 27) in the reply filed on 5/12/26 is acknowledged. Claims 1-10 and 22-25 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-10 and 22-25 are objected to because of the following informalities: The proper status identifier for these claims should be “withdrawn”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 20 is 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.
The limitation “a buffering layer disposed between at least cladding surrounding the first core and the outer jacket” is indefinite, as it is unclear if the recited cladding is required or not. It is noted that no previous cladding has been recited in relation to claim 11, therefore it’s unclear if this cladding is required or not. The examiner recommends amending the claims to recite: wherein the optical fiber cable further comprises: a cladding surrounding the first core and a buffering layer disposed between at least the cladding and the outer jacket.
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 11 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0107384 to Nadolski in view of US 2017/0160454 to Tissot.
[Claim 11] Nadolski discloses a system for providing a medical treatment (Figs. 1 and 5-7), comprising:
a first medical instrument (surgical instrument shown in Fig. 1), comprising a first control module (not shown in the drawings, but it’s inherent/implicit/clear that the instrument attaches to a laser light source/control module via laser light source connector 38; Par 0026. At the very least the laser light source described by Nadolski includes a control module, e.g. on/off switch, in order to operate/function in the disclosed manner, i.e. provide the surgical results/effects described by Nadolski) including a plurality of light sources including a first and second laser light sources (“a light source that delivers coaxially aligned laser light and white light illumination” Par 0026. The examiner takes the position that these are two different light sources, as laser light, by definition, is monochromatic and does not emit white light illumination. Therefore, two light sources are required; see additional explanation below.); and
an optical fiber cable (32) configured for optical coupling with the first medical instrument, the optical fiber cable comprising:
an outer jacket (buffer layer 50), and
a plurality of cores including a first core (inner core 44) and a second core (outer core 42). The inner/first core is configured to provide treatment/laser light (56) to a patient/body and the outer/second core is configured to provide side/lateral illumination light (58), as shown in Fig. 7 and described in at least Par 0032.
Nadolski is silent regarding the plurality of channels extending outwardly from the second core toward the outer jacket and an outer jacket doped with a photoluminescent material. However, Tissot, which is pertinent to the problem being solved, i.e. an optical fiber that provides illumination/white/visible light laterally out of the side of the fiber (at least Par 0004), discloses an optical fiber (Figs. 1b and 6a-c) having a core (100; equivalent to the second/outer core of Nadolski), a plurality of channels (109 or 110; Par 0029) that extend outwardly from the second core toward the outer jacket (103), wherein the outer jacket is comprised of a material doped with a photoluminescent material configured to absorb energy from light propagating along the second core causing photoluminescence (Par 0031). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the side-emitting illumination, i.e. second, core of Nadolski with the plurality of channels and the outer jacket of Nadolski to be doped with the photoluminescent material, as taught by Tissot, as this is a simple substitution of one known mechanism for providing side/lateral illumination light out of an optical fiber with another to obtain predictable results .
Regarding the plurality of laser light sources, as discussed above, Nadolski discloses a source that emits laser light AND white light illumination. The examiner takes the position that these are two different light sources, i.e. a first laser source and a second light source that emits white light, as laser light is monochromatic light, while white light is a broad spectrum of all visible wavelengths. Throughout the disclosure of Nadolski, a distinction is made between the laser light that is emitted out of the first/inner core and white light that is emitted out of the second/outer core, it’s unclear how a single laser source can emit both of these types of light. Furthermore, Nadolski discloses “there are many different available light sources that are used in microsurgery and in particular ophthalmic surgery, and the connector 38 can be altered so that the instrument of the invention may be used with any of these available light sources”. Therefore, Nadolski teaches a first laser source and a second light source, but fails to explicitly teach that the second light source is a laser source. However, Tissot discloses a laser source (primary light source 116, Fig. 1; “The primary light should be quasi-single wavelength or monochromatic, as produced by for example a laser or a single-color light emitting diode (LED) that is tuned to a primary absorption band of the photo-luminescent medium”; Par 0004) that is transmitted through a fiber core and through channels to an outer jacket doped with photoluminescent material to ultimately emit white/illumination light (at least Abstract, Pars 0004 and 0024). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the white light illumination source, i.e. second light source, taught by Nadolski, for the laser source taught by Tissot, as a simple substitution of one known light source for another to obtain predictable results, specifically emit white light illumination laterally out of an optical fiber.
[Claim 13] As discussed above, Nadolski teaches that the first laser source, i.e. laser light (52, Fig. 5), is directed into the first/inner core (44) to ultimately be emitted out of the surgical instrument (56, Figs. 6-7)
[Claim 14] Nadolski discloses “there are many different available light sources that are used in microsurgery and in particular ophthalmic surgery, and the connector 38 can be altered so that the instrument of the invention may be used with any of these available light sources”. The examiner contends that this encompasses laser light sources that emit at 1940 nm. If applicant disagrees, see alternative 103 rejection, below.
[Claim 15] In the proposed combination, the second core including the channels, receive and propagate the second laser source (116 of Tissot).
[Claims 16-18] Par 0033 of Tissot discloses wavelength values (including the disclosed bandwidth of 100 nm) that fall completely within applicant’s claimed range or overlap with applicant’s claimed range/values. Par 0022 discloses laser emitting red, green and blue light which also fall completely within or overlap applicant’s claimed range/values. MPEP 2144.05 states “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose/try any of the disclosed wavelengths taught by Tissot.
Additionally or alternatively, Tissot discloses “The primary light should be quasi-single wavelength or monochromatic, as produced by for example a laser or a single-color light emitting diode (LED) that is tuned to a primary absorption band of the photo-luminescent medium”, making the wavelength emitted by laser 116 a result effective variable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose/try any wavelength emitted by the second laser source (116 of Tissot) based on the photo-luminescent medium. Stated differently, a POSITA would understand that the wavelength chosen should excite/activate the photoluminescent material and would depend heavily on the chosen/desired photoluminescent medium.
[Claim 19] Tissot discloses the second laser, i.e. primary light source (116), is a laser or LED (at least Par 0004). The examiner takes the position that these disclosed light sources encompass/includes sources that are capable of operating at the claimed power level. If applicant disagrees, see alternative 103 below.
Claims 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadolski and Tissot as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 6,527,764 to Neuberger.
[Claim 12] While Nadolski and Tissot each disclose a cladding layer surrounding a core, neither reference explicitly teaches two separate cores with each core having a surrounding cladding. However, in the same field of endeavor, Neuberger discloses a dual-core optical fiber (Fig. 4) that delivers different light through each core, including a first cladding (412) surrounding a first core (202) and a second cladding (410) surrounding a second core (206). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the dual core fiber taught by Nadolski to include two separate cores and a separate cladding layer surrounding each of the cores, as taught by Neuberger, as this is a known configuration/design for a similar dual-core optical fiber that emits different light from each core. In the proposed combination, the second cladding layer surrounds the channels, similar to how the cladding (101) surrounds the channels (109 or 110; Fig 1b) of Tissot.
[Claim 20] In the combination proposed above, in relation to claim 12, the cladding layer (208) of Neuberger is interpreted as the buffering layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadolski and Tissot as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of US 2008/0027418 to Berry.
As discussed above, Nadolski discloses “there are many different available light sources that are used in microsurgery and in particular ophthalmic surgery, and the connector 38 can be altered so that the instrument of the invention may be used with any of these available light sources”, but fails to teach a laser light source that emits light at a wavelength of 1940 nanometers (1.94 microns). However, in the same field of endeavor, Berry discloses an ophthalmic surgery procedure that uses a laser source that emits light at 1.94 microns (Par 0129). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the first laser source taught by Nadolski to emit light at 1940 nm, as this is an available light source/wavelength that is used in ophthalmic surgery, as taught by Berry.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadolski and Tissot as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of US 2010/0318074 to Dacquay et al.
Nadolski and Tissot are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach that the second laser source, i.e. the white illumination light source (primary light source 116 of Tissot), operates at the claimed power level. However, in the same field of endeavor, specifically laser ophthalmic/treatment devices, Dacquay makes it clear that the a known output power for white illumination light, specifically when treating/examining the eye, is between 10 nW and 50 mW (at least Pars 0026 and claim 19). It is noted that these values for the power level overlap applicant’s claimed range of 0.01 and 0.001 Watts. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the secondary laser light source taught by Nadolski and Tissot, which functions to emit white illumination light to the eye, to operate at a power level of 0.01 to 0.001 Watts, as this is a common/known operating range for power levels of white light illumination sources in similar laser ophthalmic/treatment devices, as taught by Dacquay.
Claims 21, 26 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadolski and Tissot as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of US 2002/0099363 to Woodward et al.
Nadolski and Tissot are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach the claimed first operator interface. However, in the same field of endeavor, specifically laser treatment devices, Woodward discloses an operator interface (Fig. 1) including a graphical user interface (touch screen display 69, Fig. 1 and GUI shown in Fig. 7; Pars 0040 and 0051-52) configured for defining a plurality of operating parameters and a foot pedal interface for selective activation and deactivation of the first medical instrument (“The laser is preferably activated by using a foot switch” Par 0052). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by Nadolski and Tissot to include the operating interface taught by Woodward because a touchscreen/GUI and foot pedal are known user interface devices to input the desired operating parameters and control, i.e. activate/deactivate, the laser in similar laser treatment/ophthalmic devices, as taught by Woodward.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights