Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/587,511

BEAM DIFFRACTION FOR SURGICAL LASER

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Feb 26, 2024
Examiner
HULBERT, AMANDA K
Art Unit
3792
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
LUMENIS LTD.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
84%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
88%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 84% — above average
84%
Career Allow Rate
626 granted / 743 resolved
+14.3% vs TC avg
Minimal +4% lift
Without
With
+3.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
775
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
3.3%
-36.7% vs TC avg
§103
39.3%
-0.7% vs TC avg
§102
27.9%
-12.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.7%
-17.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 743 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 Election/Restrictions Claims 15-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on December 29, 2025. Currently claims 1-16 are pending in this application with claims 15-16 withdrawn from consideration. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rheinwald et. al (US 2008/0158629). Regarding claim 1, Rheinwald discloses an endoscopic surgical device (see par. [0021], [0053]), comprising: a laser source (e.g. laser 8 in Fig. 2; also see par. [0047], [0048]); a laser fiber optically coupled to the laser source, the laser fiber comprising an optical core and a fiber tip (light guide 1 in Fig. 2; also see e.g. par. [0038], [0044]), the optical core comprising a plurality of grating patterns forming a diffraction grating (photorefractive area 2 in Fig. 2; also see par. [0010], [0039]-[0047]); and an endoscopic probe housing an imager and the fiber tip (par. [0053]). Regarding claim 2, Rheinwald additionally discloses wherein the laser source is a high-energy pulsed laser (e.g. laser 8 in Fig. 2). Regarding claim 7, Rheinwald additionally discloses wherein each of the plurality of grating patterns is inscribed on the optical core by mechanical, chemical, or laser etching (e.g. writing of the volume holograph as taught in par. [0042]-[0044]). Regarding claim 8, Rheinwald additionally discloses wherein each of the plurality of grating patterns is inserted into the optical core by implantation or material compositing (e.g. writing of the volume holograph as taught in par. [0042]-[0044]). Regarding claim 9, Rheinwald additionally discloses wherein the diffraction grating is disposed within the fiber tip (e.g. tip as shown in Figure 1-2). Regarding claim 10, Rheinwald additionally discloses wherein a distal end surface of the fiber tip is inscribed with one of the plurality of grating patterns (e.g. writing of the volume holograph as taught in par. [0042]-[0044]). Claims 1-3, 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Toledo-Crow et al (US 2020/0261153). Regarding claim 1, Toledo-Crow discloses an endoscopic surgical device (e.g. endoscopic laser scalpel system as shown in Figure 1), comprising: a laser source (e.g. laser 140); a laser fiber optically coupled to the laser source, the laser fiber comprising an optical core (e.g. optical fiber 145) and a fiber tip (e.g. endoscopic head 250as shown in Figure 2), the optical core comprising a plurality of grating patterns forming a diffraction grating (e.g. grating as shown in Figure 4A; par. [0072]; and an endoscopic probe housing an imager and the fiber tip (e.g. imaging device as taught in [0063]). Regarding claim 2, Toledo-Crow additionally discloses wherein the laser source is a high-energy pulsed laser (e.g. laser 140). Regarding claim 3, Toledo-Crow additionally discloses wherein the plurality of grating patterns are spaced evenly along a length of the optical core (e.g. as shown in Figure 2). Regarding claim 11, Toledo-Crow additionally discloses a display device configured to display imaging data received from the imager while the endoscopic probe is deployed (e.g. image display and graphical interface 120 as shown in Figure 1). Regarding claim 12, Toledo-Crow additionally discloses a controller configured to, while the endoscopic probe is deployed: receive imaging data from the imager; and activate the laser source to discharge laser energy through the laser fiber, the laser energy emitted from the fiber tip (e.g. computer controller 130 and input 125 as shown in Figure 1). 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 4-6 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo-Crow. Regarding claims 4-6 and 13-14, Toledo-Crow discloses the claimed invention but does not disclose expressly wherein the grating patterns are spaced at intervals of between 1.9 and 35 microns along the optical core (claim 4), wherein the intervals are between 7.5 and 7.9 microns (claim 5), wherein the optical core has a diameter of between 200 and 550 microns (claim 6), wherein the laser energy is dispersed over an area exceeding ten times the diameter of the laser tip (claim 13) or wherein the laser energy is dispersed over an area that includes a plurality of regions of high intensity separated by regions of lower intensity (claim 14). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device as taught by Toledo-Crow with the desired dimensions, because Applicant has not disclosed that such dimensions provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. Because Applicants fail to disclose that the claimed range(s) provides a criticality to the invention that separates it from the other ranges in the specification, and is absent unexpected results, it would therefore have been obvious for one of ordinary skill to discover the optimum workable range(s) as disclosed above. One of ordinary skill in the art, furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the dimensions as taught by Toledo-Crow, because it provides a reliable and since it appears to be an arbitrary design consideration which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art. Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Toledo-Crow to obtain the invention as specified in the claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Amanda K Hulbert whose telephone number is (571)270-1912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-5:00. 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 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. /Amanda K Hulbert/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 26, 2024
Application Filed
Mar 05, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12582832
DEVICE FOR APPLYING MEDICAL AND COSMETIC RADIATION TO A HUMAN BODY OR TO PARTS OF A HUMAN BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12572627
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR ENHANCING ANOMALY DETECTION USING A PATTERN DICTIONARY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12564718
MAGNETIC ELECTRODE COCHLEAR IMPLANT WITH IN-SITU STIMULATION ADJUSTMENTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Patent 12551700
ADJUSTABLE AURICULAR NERVE STIMULATION DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544575
BIOELECTRIC NEUROMODULATION FOR HEMATOPOIESIS REGULATION DURING CHEMOTHERAPY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
84%
Grant Probability
88%
With Interview (+3.7%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 743 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month