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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendment dated July 1, 2026 is acknowledged. Currently claims 1-20 are pending in this application, with claims 15-20 withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-14have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection required by the amendments to the claims.
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 1-2 and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rheinwald et. al (US 2008/0158629, as previously cited) in view of Zerfas (US 2011/0118715, as cited by Applicant).
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 wherein the diffraction grating that diffracts laser energy emitted from the fiber tip (e.g. as shown in Figure 1); and
an endoscopic probe housing an imager and the fiber tip (par. [0053]).
Rheinwald does not expressly disclose grating patterns inscribed within the optical core. Zerfas teaches that it was well known in the art of optical lasers to include a grating pattern within an optical core (e.g. angled grating 317 as shown in fiber core 310 in Figure 3). It would have been obvious to include the grating pattern within the optical core as taught in Zerfas in the device of Reinhwald, since such a modification would provide the system with a reliable means of applying a desired grating pattern.
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 1-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toledo-Crow et al (US 2020/0261153) in view of Zerfas (US 2011/0118715, as cited by Applicant).
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] wherein the diffraction grating that diffracts laser energy emitted from the fiber tip (e.g. tip 900 as shown in Figure 1); and
an endoscopic probe housing an imager and the fiber tip (e.g. imaging device as taught in [0063]).
Toledo-Crew does not expressly disclose grating patterns inscribed within the optical core. Zerfas teaches that it was well known in the art of optical lasers to include a grating pattern within an optical core (e.g. angled grating 317 as shown in fiber core 310 in Figure 3). It would have been obvious to include the grating pattern within the optical core as taught in Zerfas in the device of Toledo-Crew, since such a modification would provide the system with a reliable means of applying a desired grating pattern.
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 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.
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).
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 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
Prosecution Insights