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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6/8/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 103 rejection for claims 1-9, applicant’s arguments 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. Specifically, none of McGowan, Islam, Coult or Liang teach or suggest the newly claimed amendments of a light source configured to generate optical pulses having the claimed spectral linewidth. However, this newly claimed limitation is taught/suggested by Honea, as used to reject previous claims 10-20; see explanation below.
Regarding the 103 rejection for claims 10-20, applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Honea fails to teach the newly claimed linewidth modulator, the examiner respectfully disagrees. First and foremost, Honea explicitly teaches “Some embodiments of the present invention include an optical seed source for fiber laser amplifiers where the linewidth is determined by a wavelength dependent filter for applications where the linewidth must be greater than about 0.01 nm to avoid Stimulated Brillouin Scattering” (Col 14, lines 42-46; See also Col 14, line 47 to Col 16, line 19 which all explicitly discuss avoiding Brillouin Scattering by making the linewidth of the seed source sufficiently big). Therefore, it’s abundantly clear that Honea does, in fact, teach/suggest the newly claimed limitation. Additionally, from applicant’s specification, it’s clear that a linewidth corresponding to 13 Ghz to 30 GHz inherently provides the claimed result (“This range of linewidths corresponds to a coherence length from around thousands of meters down to 2 m. This is the range over which laser light can interfere with itself and contribute to SBS. The 135 MHz Brillouin frequency linewidth in silica corresponds to a coherence length around 70 cm. To reduce the Brillouin gain coefficient to the point where SBS would not impact light transmission through the fiber, the linewidth needs to be several orders of magnitude greater than the basic Brillouin frequency linewidth. That would be 13 GHz to 30 GHz, corresponding to a coherence length around 7 mm to 3 mm”). It is emphasized that Honea not only explicitly teaches the same effect, i.e. suppression of stimulated Brillouin scattering by generating optical pulses that have a linewidth greater than a Brillouin gain bandwidth, but also explicitly teaches the same frequency as applicant, specifically 25 Ghz (Col 4, line 52 to Col 5, line 2); This disclosed frequency, according to applicant’s own specification, inherently provides the claimed result. Therefore, for both of these reasons, Honea discloses the claimed linewidth modulator configured to modify the linewidth of the seed source to exceed a Brillouin gain bandwidth to suppress SBS. Therefore, the examiner is substantially maintaining the previous 103 rejection with updated claim mapping to address applicant’s amendments; see 103 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation “wherein the light source is configured to generate optical pulses having a spectral linewidth greater than a Brillouin gain bandwidth of the light guide to suppress stimulated Brillouin scattering within the light guide; and wherein suppression of stimulated Brillouin scattering modifies a maximum deliverable pulse energy through the light guide for delivery to the treatment site” is not sufficiently supported by or described in applicant’s specification, as to how a light source having only a seed source, pre-amplifier and an amplifier (as recited in claim 1) can provide the claimed function/effect. It is emphasized that these claims do NOT require that the light source includes a linewidth modulator, therefore the scope of the current claim language encompasses a light source without a linewidth modulator. From applicant’s specification, it is readily apparent that a linewidth modulator is required to achieve the claimed effect. Therefore, since the scope of the current claims does not require a linewidth modulator, and the specification provides no indication that the claimed effect can be accomplished without such a linewidth modulator, the claimed “light source”, i.e. a light source that does not include a linewidth modulator but is configured to provide the claimed effect, is not sufficiently described.
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 1-9 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.
The scope of the limitation “wherein the light source is configured to generate optical pulses having a spectral linewidth greater than a Brillouin gain bandwidth of the light guide to suppress stimulated Brillouin scattering within the light guide; and wherein suppression of stimulated Brillouin scattering modifies a maximum deliverable pulse energy through the light guide for delivery to the treatment site” is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what is structurally required for a light source to provide the claimed function/effect. As discussed above, it seems apparent that a linewidth modulator is required in order for a light source to generate the claimed optical pulses, but no linewidth modulator is currently required by the claims, leaving the scope/breadth of what is actually required unclear. MPEP 2173.05(g): the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear.
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 and 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. and further in view of US 7,539,231 to Honea et al., as evidenced by US 6,631,220 to Liang et al.
[Claims and 10] [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.
Regarding the limitation “wherein the light source is configured to generate optical pulses having a spectral linewidth greater than a Brillouin gain bandwidth of the light guide to suppress stimulated Brillouin scattering within the light guide; and wherein suppression of stimulated Brillouin scattering modifies a maximum deliverable pulse energy through the light guide for delivery to the treatment site” (claim 1) and the limitation “(ii) a linewidth modifier that modifies a linewidth of the light energy output by the seed source…wherein the linewidth modifier is configured to modify the linewidth of the seed source to exceed a Brillouin gain bandwidth of the light guide; and wherein the seed source and the linewidth modifier cooperatively define the linewidth to suppress stimulated Brillouin scattering during amplification and delivery through the light guide.” (claim 10), McGowan, Islam and Coult fail to explicitly teach the claimed linewidth modifier (or a light source that is configured to generate optical pulses having a spectral linewidth that provides the claimed function/effect). 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). Specifically, Honea discloses fiber Bragg gratings (FBG) that control the linewidth to generated a linewidth of 0.1 nm (about 25 GHz); Col 4, line 31 to Col 5, line 2. Additionally, Honea explicitly teaches “applications where the linewidth must be greater than about 0.01 nm to avoid Stimulated Brillouin Scattering” (At least Col 14, line 42 to Col 16, line 19). 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, specifically a linewidth modulator (or light source) that controls the linewidth of a seed source to avoid/suppress Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS), as taught by Honea, as this is a commonly known and used element in similar laser devices. Specifically, Honea teaches “in particular, Stimulated Brillouin Scattering (SBS) is a well-known phenomenon that can lead to power limitations or even the destruction of a high-power fiber-laser system due to sporadic or unstable feedback, self-lasing, pulse compression and/or signal amplification” (Col 1, lines 59-64). Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate a linewidth modifier into the light source taught by McGowan, Islam and Coult to avoid or suppress this negative/damaging effect (SBS), as taught by Honea.
Regarding the claimed effects of “the seed source and the linewidth modifier cooperating with one another to (i) modify 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. Furthermore, as discussed above, Honea explicitly teaches these claimed effects.
[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 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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McGowan, Islam, Coult and Honea, as evidenced by Liang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 6,356,575 Fukumoto.
McGowan, Islam, Coult, Honea 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2011/0170567 to Armstrong discloses increasing the bandwidth of a seed laser pulse to “circumvent narrow-spectral band induced optical damage and/or deleterious nonlinear optical effects, including, but not limited to, stimulated Brillouin scattering” (Par 0036).
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