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 with respect to the 103 rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has found a new prior art reference (McGowan) to teach the amended limitations; see new 103 rejection below.
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.
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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0129195 to McGowan in view of US 2015/0250542 to Islam (provided on applicant’s IDS) and further in view of US 5,082,343 to Coult et al., as evidenced by US 6,631,220 to Liang et al.
[Claim 1] McGowan discloses a catheter system for treating a treatment site within or adjacent to a vessel wall or a heart valve (catheter system 100; Fig. 1), the catheter system comprising:
a light guide (any of light guides 110, 112or 114) that is configured to selectively receive light energy (Abstract; Par 0045);
a light source (light source 116) that is configured to generate the light energy, the light source being in optical communication with the light guide (Abstract; Par 0045),
a shaft (elongate shaft 102) along which the light guide extends (Abstract; Par 0045); and
an expandable component (balloon 122) coupled with the shaft (Abstract; Par 0044);
wherein the light energy received by the light guide generates one or both of plasma and pressure waves within an interior of the expandable component to apply a treatment to the treatment site (inertial bubbles and acoustic pressure waves 126; Abstract; Pars 0043 and 0047)
McGowan discusses suitable light sources, specifically sub-millisecond infrared lasers, that produce the desired effect (Pars 0116-117), but is silent to a light source that includes a seed source, pre-amplifier and amplifier, as claimed. However, in the same field of endeavor, Islam discloses a laser catheter system (Fig 12a) including a laser that operates in the infrared wavelength range and produces sub-millisecond pulses (Pars 0105-106 and 0117-0126). The light source including (i) a seed source (DFB laser diode; 1201/1251) that is configured to output the light energy, (ii) a pre-amplifier (1202/1252) that is configured to receive the light energy from the seed source, the pre-amplifier being in optical communication with the seed source, and (iii) an amplifier (1204/1254) that is configured to receive the light energy from the pre- amplifier, the amplifier being in optical communication with the pre-amplifier and the light guide (Pars 0109-113). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the sub-millisecond infrared laser taught by McGowan for the specific sub-millisecond infrared laser source including a seed source, pre-amplifier and amplifier taught by Islam, as a simple substitution of one known laser for another to obtain predictable results, specifically to produce the desired laser parameters, e.g. wavelength and pulse duration.
McGowan and Islam are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach a collimator that is configured to collimate the light energy output by the pre-amplifier, the collimator being in optical communication with the pre-amplifier and the amplifier. However, it is noted that Islam explicitly teaches an isolator (1206/1256; Fig 12a) between the preamplifier (1202/1252) and the amplifier (1204/1254), but is silent regarding the details of this isolator. Coult discloses a known configuration for an optical isolator (Fig. 1) that includes two collimating lens (12 and 14) to collimate the beam as it enters and leaves. Furthermore, the examiner takes the position that this design for optical isolators is commonly known and pervasive throughout the art, as evidence by Liang. Specifically, Liang teaches “typical optical isolators include a pair of collimating elements, such as GRIN (graduated index) lenses at the input and output ports of the device, and a core assembly located between the pair of collimating elements.” (Col 1, lines 14-20). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the optical isolator taught Islam to include collimators, as taught by Coult, as this is a commonly known and used configuration for optical isolators, as taught by Liang.
[Claim 2] The “pulse electronics” shown as elements 1201/1251 in Fig. 12a of Islam is considered seed source controller.
[Claim 3] The examiner interprets the power amplifier (1204/1254) of Islam to either be or include an optical element that is configured to direct the light energy into the light guide (1209/1259). The examiner contends that in the proposed combination, the fiber (1209/1259) of Islam is equivalent to fiber (110, 112 or 114) of McGowan, as the laser source (116) generates the light that is then transmitted into fiber (110, 112, 114) in the same/similar way that source (1200/1250) generates light that is then transmitted to fiber (1209/1259).
[Claim 4] Islam discloses that the seed laser (1201/1251) is a laser diode (Fig 12a; Pars 0109-110)
[Claims 5-6] The examiner contends that there are only two options for coupling/connecting optical elements along an optical path, specifically they are either free-spaced coupled or coupled with light guides (see NPL entitled “Free Space Optics vs. Fiber Optics”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to try either option.
[Claim 7] Islam discloses “the fiber pre-amplifier 1202 can comprise an erbium-doped fiber amplifier” (Par 0109) and “The fiber pre-amplifier 1252 can comprise an erbium-doped fiber amplifier.” (Par 0110); both are considered fiber optical laser.
[Claim 8] Islam discloses “The power amplifier stage 1204 can comprise a larger core size erbium/ytterbium doped double-clad fiber” (Par 0109) and “The power amplifier stage 1254 can comprise a thulium doped double-clad fiber, and another isolator 1257 can be used before the power amplifier 1254” (Par 0110); both are considered fiber optic laser
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGowan, Islam and Coult, as evidenced by Liang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,356,575 Fukumoto.
McGowan, Islam, Coult and Liang are discussed above, but fail to explicitly teach the claimed gain medium for the amplifier. As is well known in the art, the gain medium is chosen to provide the desired wavelength. Fukumoto teaches a known amplifier design that includes an Nd:YAG gain medium optically coupled to a diode stack (Col 3, lines 31-35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the amplifier taught by Islam for the Nd:YAG configuration taught by Fukumoto, as this is merely a simple substitution of one known laser amplifier design for another, specifically in order to achieve the desired results of producing the desired wavelength.
Claims 10-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0129195 to McGowan in view of US 2015/0250542 to Islam (provided on applicant’s IDS) in view of US 5,082,343 to Coult et al., as evidenced by US 6,631,220 to Liang et al., and further in view of US 7,539,231 to Honea et al.
[Claim 10] This claim is exactly the same as claim 1 (discussed above) except for the addition of “a linewidth modifier that modifies a linewidth of the light energy output by the seed source”. McGowan, Islam and Coult fail to explicitly teach the claimed linewidth modifier. However, such linewidth modifiers are extremely well-known in the art. For example, Honea discloses an “apparatus and method for generating controlled-linewidth laser-seed-signals for high-powered fiber-laser amplifier systems. In some embodiments, the natural chirp (frequency change of laser light over a short start-up time) of a DBR laser diode when driven by pulsed current is used to broaden the linewidth of the laser output, while adjusting the peak current and/or the pulse duration to obtain the desired linewidth.” (Abstract). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device taught by McGowan, Islam and Coult to include a linewidth modifier, as taught by Honea, as this is a commonly known and used element in similar laser devices.
Regarding the claimed effects of “the seed source and the linewidth modifier cooperating with one another to (i) increase a seed linewidth of the seed source, (ii) improve amplification of the light energy, and (iii) minimize Stimulated Brillouin Scattering in the light guide”, the examiner contends these effects are an intended effect/functional limitation and the structural elements/configurations taught by the combination of McGowan, Islam, Coult and Honea are inherently capable of providing these results; See MPEP 2114; “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does”. Specifically, the combination of references teach all of the necessary structural elements and structural configurations to inherently provide the claimed results.
[Claim 11] Islam discloses a distributed feedback laser diode (DFB 1201/1251; Pars 0109-110)
[Claim 12] Based on the fact that Honea explicitly teaches controlling/adjusting the wavelength/linewdith of the seed source, the examiner contends that Honea teaches all the necessary structure to provide the claimed function; MPEP 2114. Specifically, the examiner interprets the electronics circuit, i.e. laser drive circuit, that controls/adjusts the wavelength/linewidth, as taught by Honea, as a seed controller. It is also noted that applicant has no criticality or unexpected results to the center wavelengths being above and below an amplifier wavelength. Therefore, at the very least it would be obvious to try different wavelengths for the seed source, including wavelengths above and below the amplifier wavelength, as a routine optimization; MPEP 2144.05.
[Claim 13] Similar to claim 6 above, the examiner contends that the lines shown in the drawings connecting various optical elements are inherently/necessarily coupling light guides or the examiner takes the position that these coupling light guides are common, well-known and pervasive throughout the art and it would be obvious to use them to connect/couple the optical elements to each other.
[Claims 14 and 15] Honea discloses controller the pulse shape of the seed source (Figs. 16C and 19; “The optical pulse shape can be adjusted to compensate for pulse steepening in later amplifier stages”); this is considered direct modulation.
Furthermore, Honea explicitly teaches an acoustic-optic modulator (Col 4, lines 63-68, Col 8, lines 39-46 and Col 10, lines 64-66) which inherently possesses the claimed functionality.
[Claim 16] Honea discloses “In some embodiments, the present invention provides a seed source based on spectral filtering of an amplified-stimulated emission (ASE) source using fiber Bragg gratings (FBG) that was developed and demonstrated for linewidths greater than approximately 10 GHz.” (Col 4, lines 29-37)
[Claim 17] As seen in Fig. 12a of Islam, the light source (1200 or 1250) includes the seed source (1201/1251), the pre-amplifier (1202/1252) and the amplifier (1204/1254). Regarding the linewidth modifier, Honea makes it clear that the linewidth modulator is part of the seed source (210, Figs. 2-3 of Honea), and therefore in the proposed combination/modification, the linewidth modulator is also part of the light source (1200/1250), as a whole.
[Claim 18] As discussed above, in relation to claim 17, Honea discloses that the linewidth modulator, specifically the fiber bragg grating (FBG 340) is located after the seed source (laser diode pump 310), but before any amplification (“to next stage”/YDFA 1; see Figs. 2-3). Therefore, in the proposed combination/modification, the same order exists, i.e. the linewidth modulator is positioned between the seed source and the pre-amplifier.
[Claim 19] As discussed above, in relation to claim 1, the optical isolator (which includes the collimator) is positioned between the seed source and pre-amplifier.
[Claim 20] The majority of these claim limitations have been previously addressed above; see claims 6, 10, 13 and 17-19. Regarding the second and third coupling light guides, see explanations related to claims 6 and 13. Specifically, coupling optical elements together with a coupling light guide is either inherent or obvious, as there are only two options to connect/couple optical elements, i.e. free space and fiber optic coupling, making either option obvious to try.
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 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