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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “light irradiation part of the second optical fiber is not installed with a lens for expanding an irradiation range of the laser light” of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 states, “wherein the numerical aperture of the first lens and the first optical fiber is smaller by about 0.5 or greater than the numerical aperture of the second lens and the second optical fiber.”
It is unclear which elements are being addressed in the “smaller” comparison. In other words what is it that the numerical aperture of the first lens and the first optical fiber are smaller than? The claim does not provide adequate context.
Furthermore, the claim seems to be saying the numerical aperture is either small than or greater than the numerical aperture of the second lens and the second optical fiber.
Claim 4 depends upon claim 3 and therefore carries the deficiencies of claim 3. However, for purposes of examination, claim 3 will be interpreted to include the language of claim 4 for context and clarity.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, and 11-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,953,937 Kikuchi et al. (herein “Kikuchi”, cited on the IDS of 12/18/2023) in view of US 6,952,296 B1 Dultz et al. (herein “Dultz”).
Regarding claims 1 and 16, Kikuchi discloses:
A system for expanding irradiation, the system comprising:
a first optical fiber (1) for transmitting a laser light from a light source;
a second optical fiber (2) for irradiating the laser light, wherein the second optical fiber is different from the first optical fiber; and
an apparatus (4, 4’) optically connected to the first optical fiber and the second optical fiber, the apparatus comprising:
a housing (10) having an inside space;
a first lens (3) disposed within the inside space; and
a second lens (3) disposed within the inside space (illumination lenses 3; see, for example, fig. 57B),
wherein the first lens and the second lens (lenses 3) are disposed so that the light exited from the first optical fiber would enter the second optical fiber through the second lens after going through the first lens, and wherein the numerical aperture (NA) of the first lens and the first optical fiber is smaller than the numerical aperture of the second lens and the second optical fiber (col. 9, line 30 – col. 10, line 38; col. 20, lines 13-60; Figs 10B, 57B; wherein θ is shown as smaller than θ2 in Fig, 57B).
Kikuchi discloses a light source, but is silent as to specifically using a white laser light source. However, Dultz discloses a system for expanding a radiation range using specifically a laser. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use a laser as the light source, which Dultz exemplifies (see Fig 2b). Dultz teaches that using a laser with a fiber allows for optimal adaptation (col. 4, lines 49-59). Furthermore, while Applicant claims a laser, the instant Specification states that any light source can be used.
Regarding claim 2, Kikuchi discusses the numerical apertures (NA) throughout the specification and shows possession of the knowledge of the significance of adjusting the Nas and varying them as needed, but is silent as to specifically the numerical aperture of the first lens being substantially the same as the numerical aperture of the first optical fiber, and wherein the numerical aperture of the second lens being substantially the same as the numerical aperture of the second optical fiber. However, a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would understand that in order to maximize the efficiency of the light source, that is to say, to optimize the amount of light being propagated, the numerical aperture of the lens would need to be equal to or larger than the numerical aperture of the respective fiber. Therefore, setting the numerical aperture of each lens to be equal to its respective fiber would require only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, Kikuchi discusses adjusting the sizes of the numerical apertures for optimization (col. 19, line 65 – col. 20, line12; col. 20, lines 42-50), but is silent as to the exact values or ranges of values of the numerical apertures. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date to have the numerical aperture of the first lens and the first optical fiber be about 0.2, and the numerical aperture of the second lens and the second optical fiber be about 0.7 or greater so as to optimize the light propagation, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 6, Kikuchi discloses a first connector optically connected to the first optical fiber (1) and a second connector optically connected to the second optical fiber (2) (see annotated figure 56, reproduced below), wherein the second lens is an aspherical lens configured to focus the laser light that entered the second lens to the second connector (col. 5, lines 12-35).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
419
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Kikuchi discloses an optical axis of the second lens (3) disposes the second lens so as to be at a position deviated from an optical axis of the first lens (col. 17, lines 32-63; shown in Figs. 35, 60A, 60B).
Regarding claim 12, Kikuchi and Dultz are silent as to the fiber being a mode mixing fiber. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select the appropriate type of fiber for the intended outcome, including a mode mixing fiber, which would ensure a uniform output signal.
Regarding claim 13, Kikuchi and Dultz are silent as to the light irradiation part of the second optical fiber is not installed with a lens for expanding an irradiation range of the laser light. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit one of the lenses, since omission of an element and its function is obvious if the function of the element is not desired. See MPEP 2144.04IIA.
Regarding claims 14 and 15, Kikuchi and Dultz disclose the claimed invention except for an irradiation range of the laser light that passed through the apparatus is at least five-folds in size over an irradiation range of a laser light that had not passed through the apparatus and a maximum value of an irradiation intensity of the laser light that passed through the apparatus is about 60% or less of a maximum value of an irradiation intensity of a laser light that had not passed through the apparatus. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the size of the light passing through the apparatus for optimum beam transmission, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17, Kikuchi discloses an optical axis within the apparatus and an optical axis of the second optical fiber intersect (col. 17, lines 32-63; see, e.g. Figs. 7, 10A, 10B).
Regarding claim 18, Kikuchi discloses the second optical fiber is an optical fiber installed in an endoscope (col. 1, lines 6-13).
Regarding claim 19, Kikuchi discusses different diameter sizes (see, e.g. col. 19, line 65 – col. 20, line 12), but is silent as to specifically a core diameter of the first optical fiber is about 105 µm, and a core diameter of the second optical fiber is about 120 µm. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have a core diameter of the first optical fiber is about 105 µm, and a core diameter of the second optical fiber is about 120 µm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). Optimizing the diameters ensures efficient coupling of the light beam.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,953,937 Kikuchi et al. (herein “Kikuchi”, cited on the IDS of 12/18/2023) in view of US 6,952,296 B1 Dultz et al. (herein “Dultz”) in further view of US 5,361,166 Atkinson et al. (herein Atkinson, cited on the attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 5, Kikuchi and Dultz are silent as to using an achromatic lens. The benefits of an achromatic lens are so widely known (reduction in aberrations), that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to use an achromatic lens, so as to ensure the beam is optimal and does not have aberrations. Regardless, Atkinson is provided as an example of an endoscope using achromatic lenses for the purpose of reducing aberrations (see Abstract).
Claim(s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,953,937 Kikuchi et al. (herein “Kikuchi”, cited on the IDS of 12/18/2023) in view of US 6,952,296 B1 Dultz et al. (herein “Dultz”) in further view of JP 2008040042 A Kazuo et al. (herein “Kazuo”, cited on the IDS of 12/18/2023).
Regarding claims 7-9, Kikuchi and Dultz are silent as to a filter disposed between the first lens and the second lens. However, Kazuo discloses in the figures, an optical system with a tilted (see Fig. 4) band-pass filter, a low-pass filter, or a high-pass filter (dichroic mirror 25) for restricting a laser light that can pass through, wherein the filter (25) is disposed between the first lens (22) and the second lens (26). Kazuo teaches that using such a filter between the lenses minimizes distortion (see English translation, description of Fig. 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, to include a filter as taught by Kazuo, so as to minimize distortion, thus optimizing the beam transmission.
Claim(s) 10 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 4,953,937 Kikuchi et al. (herein “Kikuchi”, cited on the IDS of 12/18/2023) in view of US 6,952,296 B1 Dultz et al. (herein “Dultz”) in further view of JP 2013145344 A Ito et al. (herein “Ito”, cited on the IDS of 12/18/2023).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Kikuchi and Dultz are silent as to a pair of combined lenses for achieving even light quantity distribution of a laser light than can pass through, wherein the light quantity distribution correction optical system is disposed between the first lens and the second lens. However, Ito discloses in Fig. 1 a pair of combined lenses (11, 12) for achieving even light quantity distribution of a laser light than can pass through, wherein the light quantity distribution correction optical system is disposed between the first lens (4) and the second lens (5), wherein an irradiation intensity distribution of the laser light that passed through the light quantity distribution correction optical system would be a concave (shown in figures). Ito teaches that including such lenses allows for shaping the intensity distribution with high precision (see English translation; Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to include the pair of combined lenses taught by Ito so as to precisely control the intensity distribution.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARY A EL-SHAMMAA whose telephone number is (571)272-2469. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9am-6pm (flexible schedule).
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, Thomas Hollweg can be reached at 571-270-1739. 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.
/MARY A EL-SHAMMAA/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/THOMAS A HOLLWEG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874