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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is amended.
Claims 7-19 are withdrawn from consideration.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-8, filed 8/3/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of
claim(s) 1-6 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Bruno in view of Rink.
35 U.S.C. 103: “a light detector.”
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Bruno, alone or in combination with the prior art,
does not teach, “a light detector optically coupled to the laser instrument and including temperature sensing to detect a temperature at the affected disc tissue or cartilage tissue to modify the treatment of the tissue.” After further search and consideration, the examiner will now rely on Rink to teach this limitation (col. 5, lines 29-45). The apparatus 11 comprises a detector 17 that is connected optically to the laser output port and delivery system. The detection system 17 comprises an electronic temperature sensor and an infrared detector.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light detector from Bruno by replacing it with the detection system from Rink for the benefit of monitoring appropriate temperature of the laser and selectively attenuates the laser energy transmission through the apparatus.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BRUNO et al. EP: EP
3117792 A1, hereinafter Bruno in view of BRUNO et al. WO: WO 2020127866 A1, hereinafter Klaus in view of Rink et al. US Pat.: US 5154707 A, hereinafter Rink in view of Richley et al. US Pub.: US 20050222681 A1, hereinafter Richley in view of Bukesov et al. US Pub.: US 20210038304 A1, hereinafter Bukesov.
Regarding claim 1, Bruno teaches an apparatus comprising:
a robot adapted to perform a spinal surgery and including:
an arm (2) (figs. 1, 2; paragraph 14-15 and 32-35); A compact solid state photoablation laser mounted in a robotic arm 2.
and an end effector (22) coupled to the arm (fig. 1, 22; paragraph 32-35); The last segment of the robotic arm 22 equates to the end effector.
a laser instrument (laser head unit (3)) configured to attach to the end effector for controlled movement by the robot (fig. 1, 22; paragraph 32-35); A laser head unit 3 is disclosed to be attached to the end effector 22.
a light detector (optical sensor (unlabeled)) configured to detect the second laser pulses (paragraph 23-24). An optical coherence tomography instrument is disclosed to capture images for determining the depth of the hard tissue to be ablated.
However, Bruno does not teach a laser instrument configured perform spinal surgery and to selectively emit: a first laser pulses through a laser conduit of the attached laser instrument at a wavelength selected to affect disc tissue or cartilage tissue without ablating bone; and a second laser pulses through a laser conduit of the attached laser instrument configured to interrogate a target region; a light detector optically coupled to the laser instrument and including temperature sensing to detect a temperature at the affected disc tissue or cartilage tissue to modify the treatment of the tissue; an irrigator configured to provide, through a cooling lumen of the laser instrument a fluid proximate tissue affected by the laser instrument to provide cooling and a medium to evacuate debris; and a suction generator configured to remove, through a suction lumen of the laser instrument, the fluid.
Klaus, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a laser instrument configured to selectively emit:
a first laser pulses through a laser conduit of the attached laser instrument at a wavelength selected to affect disc tissue or cartilage tissue without ablating bone (fig. 1; paragraph 39-41 and 46-48); The control unit may adjust the laser beam to identify tissue type using plume analysis. This is the third beam disclosed.
and a second laser pulses through a laser conduit of the attached laser instrument configured to interrogate a target region (fig. 1; paragraph 39-41 and 46-48); The control unit may adjust the laser beam to ablate or interrogated a target region of the identified tissue type. This is the first and second beam disclosed.
Richley, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that lasers may be used to vaporize bones to open the foraminal space and vaporize intervening tissue to enable the disc, vertebra and nerves of a patient’s spine (paragraph 164).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform laser spinal surgery with the surgical tool of Bruno in view of Klaus as supported by Richley for the benefit of vaporizing bone to open the foraminal space and vaporize intervening tissue to enable the disc, vertebra and nerves of the patient’s spine.
Rink teaches an apparatus for external control of surgical laser and further teaches a light detector optically coupled to the laser instrument and including temperature sensing to detect a temperature at the affected disc tissue or cartilage tissue to modify the treatment of the tissue.” After further search and consideration, the examiner will now rely on Rink to teach this limitation (col. 5, lines 29-45). The apparatus 11 comprise a detector 17 that is connected optically to the laser output port and delivery system. The detection system 17 comprises an electronic temperature sensor and an infrared detector.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the light detector from Bruno by replacing it with the detection system from Rink for the benefit of monitoring appropriate temperature of the laser and selectively attenuates the laser energy transmission through the apparatus.
Bukesov, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an irrigator configured to provide, through a cooling lumen (434) of the laser instrument, a fluid proximate tissue affected by the laser instrument to provide cooling and a medium to evacuate debris (fig. 4b; paragraph 100 and 107); Cooling irrigation lumen is disclosed to be 434.
a suction generator configured to remove, through a suction lumen (436) of the laser instrument, the fluid (fig. 4b; paragraph 100 and 107). A flush controller acts as a suction generator to flash waste and fluid from the target area. Suction lumen is disclosed to be 436.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Richley with the flush control of Bukesov for the benefit of flushing out debris from the target tissue.
Regarding claim 2, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Rink in view of Richley in further view of
Bukesov teaches the claimed invention except for a computer coupled to the light detector and having one or more processors configured to perform topographical analysis or spectral analysis based on the detected second laser pulses. Klaus further teaches: a computer coupled to the light detector and having one or more processors configured to perform topographical analysis or spectral analysis based on the detected second laser pulses (paragraph 48-49). The plume analyzing arrangement can comprise a laser spectroscope. Therefore spectral analysis is performed because laser spectroscopy is a branch of the study.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Rink in view of Richley in view of Bukesov with the spectral analysis from Klaus for the benefit of allowing for a comparably quick analysis such that the substances can be identified more or less in real-time time or, at least, within the time of the intervention
Regarding claim 3, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Rink in view of Richley in further view of
Bukesov teaches the claimed invention and Bruno further teaches further comprising: a laser generator configured to generate the first laser pulses according to parameters (fig. 1, 31; paragraph 17) but does not teach the computer is further configured to modify the parameters based on the topographical analysis or spectral analysis. Klaus further teaches wherein the computer is further configured to modify the parameters based on the topographical analysis or spectral analysis (paragraph 48-49). The plume analyzing arrangement can comprise a laser spectroscope. Therefore spectral analysis is performed because laser spectroscopy is a branch of the study.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the controller of Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Rink in view of Richley in view of Bukesov with the spectral analysis from Klaus for the benefit of allowing for a comparably quick analysis such that the substances can be identified more or less in real-time time or, at least, within the time of the intervention
Regarding claim 4, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Rink in view of Richley in further view of
Bukesov teaches the claimed invention and Bruno further teaches further comprising a reference array coupled to the attached laser instrument and configured to permit the tracking of a location of the laser instrument (paragraph 51). The navigation auto tracking system comprises a set of infrared emitters, an infrared antenna, a set of data stored and processed in a central operating console to correct the position of the photoablation beam.
Regarding claim 5, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Rink in view of Richley in further view of
Bukesov teaches the claimed Invention, and Bruno further teaches wherein the reference array includes two or more tracking fiducials (paragraph 51). The navigation auto tracking system comprises a set of infrared emitters. Therefore, two or more tracking fiducials are disclosed.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruno in view of Klaus in
view of Rink in view of Richley in view of Bukesov in view of HIRVONEN et al. US Pub.: US 2017/0119466 A1, Hereinafter Hirvonen.
Regarding claim 6, Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Rink in view of Richley in further view of
Bukesov does not teach a coupling configured to couple the laser instrument to a robot.
Hirvonen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a coupling configured to couple the laser instrument to a robot (fig. 1; paragraph 61). The laser head 101 is coupled to the robotic arm 102.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus from Bruno in view of Klaus in view of Rink in view of Richley in further view of Bukesov to couple the laser instrument to a robotic arm from Hirvonen for the benefit of providing efficient and safe surgical movement during procedure and to detach the device when necessary.
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 THIEN J TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/T.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
