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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 4/5/24 has/have been acknowledged and is/are being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5, 12 and 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Van Valen et al. (U.S. Pub. 2013/0085484 hereinafter “Van Valen”).
Regarding claims 1 and 27, Van Valen discloses a device and method for performing treatment of biological tissue, comprising: a laser system configured to provide a laser beam having a wavelength within a range of 3.0 microns (pm) to 3.25 pm inclusive (e.g. ¶49) and a spot size within a range of 10 microns to 45 microns inclusive (e.g. ¶48); and a controller coupled to the laser system and configured to scan the laser beam over the biological tissue in an injury pattern, the injury pattern having a pitch that is sized to be in a range of 0.1 mm to 1 mm inclusive (e.g. ¶95; [0.1-1mm pattern distance]).
Regarding claims 2 and 28, Van Valen further discloses wherein the spot size is within a range of 30 micron to 45 micron inclusive (e.g. ¶48).
Regarding claim 5, Van Valen further discloses wherein the injury pattern is an array of spots or lines (e.g. ¶31).
Regarding claim 12, Van Valen further discloses wherein each spot in the array of spots and each line in the array of lines has an ablation depth within a range of 25 micron to 3000 micron inclusive (e.g. ¶45).
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.
Claim(s) 3-4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Valen as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 12 and 27-28 above, and further in view of Fried et al. (U.S. Pat. 6,221,068 hereinafter “Fried”).
Regarding claims 3-4, Van Valen discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing the radiant exposure of the laser system. However, Fried teaches that it is known to use a laser system with similar parameters and a radiant exposure between 30 and 4000J as set forth in Column 23, lines 49-53 to provide radiant exposure that is enough to provide therapy but not enough to cause injury. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Van Valen, with the radiant exposure as taught by Fried, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using known values that are enough to provide therapy but not enough to cause injury.
Regarding claim 13, Van Valen discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing the intensity profile being a quasi-gaussian/flat top profile. However, Fried teaches that it is known to use a laser system with similar parameters and a gaussian profile as set forth in Column 23, lines 49-53 to provide targeted exposure while minimizing exposure on the edges of the beam. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Van Valen, with the gaussian profile as taught by Fried, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of targeted exposure while minimizing exposure on the edges of the beam.
Claim(s) 6-8, 10-11 and 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Valen as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 12 and 27-28 above, and further in view of Sercel et al. (U.S. Pub. 2015/0179523 hereinafter “Sercel”).
Regarding claims 6-8 and 29-31, Van Valen discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing the density and depth of the spots and lines. However, Sercel teaches that it is known to use a laser system with similar that provides for spots with a density in the range of 100-10000 spots per centimeter a depth of 25-3000 microns as set forth in Figure 18A and Paragraphs 53, 95-97 to provide a density and depth that provides effective ablation. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Van Valen, with the density and depth as taught by Sercel, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing a density and depth that provides effective ablation.
Regarding claims 10-11, Van Valen discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing the density and depth of the spots and lines. However, Sercel teaches that it is known to use a laser system with similar that provides for spots decreased spots near the array edge as set forth in Paragraph 62 to provide reduced energy at the edges to provide separation and reduced cracking of the tissue. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Van Valen, with the reduced density of spots at the edges as taught by Sercel, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of providing reduced energy at the edges to provide separation and reduced cracking of the tissue.
Claim(s) 19-20 and 23-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Van Valen as applied to claims 1-2, 5, 12 and 27-28 above, and further in view of Lin (U.S. Pat. 6,258,082) and Borguet et al. (U.S. Pub. 2010/0321767 hereinafter “Borguet”).
Regarding claims 19-20 and 23, Van Valen discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly disclosing the how the handpiece of figure 12 is constructed. However, Lin teaches a laser system with similar construction and parameters that teaches a laser source(s) (e.g. 19, 20), a wavelength conversion (e.g. 3), a scanner (e.g. 4), a optical focusing system (e.g. 5), and an optical fiber(s) (e.g. 21, 22) to supply the laser energy. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Van Valen, with laser handle construction as taught by Lin, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using well-known laser delivery handle construction to provide laser therapy. Van Valen in view of Lin teaches the claimed device, but fails to explicitly state that the generator is a difference frequency generator that comprises a optical parametric oscillator. However, Borguet teaches that it is known to use OPO to provide exact frequency mixing to provide mid-IR frequencies for treatment as taught in Paragraphs 33 and 77. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the system as taught by Van Valen in view of Lin, with OPO difference frequency generators as taught by Borguet, since such a modification would provide the predictable results of using well-known frequency mixing to provide mid-IR frequencies for treatment.
Regarding claim 24, meeting the limitations of claim 19 above, Lin further discloses wherein the laser module comprises two diode pumped fiber laser sources (e.g. Abstract, Column 9, lines 32-42).
Regarding claims 25-26, meeting the limitations of claim 19 above, Borguet further teaches wherein laser radiation emitted from each of the two diode pumped fiber laser sources is mixed and delivered to the difference frequency generator by the optical fiber (e.g. ¶¶33, 77).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REX R HOLMES whose telephone number is (571)272-8827. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00AM-5:30PM.
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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at (571) 270-3061. 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.
/REX R HOLMES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796