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 (IDS) submitted on 5/24/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: item 48 and 35. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because:
Line 1 recites “the delivery”. As the delivery has not been previously introduced, Examiner suggests replacing “the delivery” with “a delivery” to put the abstract in clearer form.
Line 3 recites “the distal end of the rod body”. As the distal end of the rod body has not been previously introduced, Examiner suggests replacing “the distal end of the rod body” with “a distal end of the rod body” to put the abstract in clearer form.
Line 6-7 recites “the absorbing compound”. Line 3 recites “an absorbent compound”. It appears the absorbing compound is the same as the absorbent compound. Examiner suggests replacing “the absorbing compound” in line 6-7 with “the absorbent compound” to put the abstract in clearer form and clearly refer to the absorbent compound of line 3.
A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3-4 recites “a bioprinting cartridge arranged near a distal end of the rod body comprising”. Examiner suggests replacing “a bioprinting cartridge arranged near a distal end of the rod body comprising” in line 3-4 of claim 1 with “a bioprinting cartridge arranged near a distal end of the rod body, the bioprinting cartridge comprising” to put the claim in clearer form that the bioprinting cartridge and not the rod body comprises the listed components.
Line 9 recites “said solution comprising a therapeutic agent”. Claim 1 introduces the solution as “a solution containing a therapeutic agent” in line 5-6. Examiner suggests replacing “said solution comprising a therapeutic agent” in line 9 of claim 1 with “said solution containing the therapeutic agent” to put the claim in clearer form.
Line 11-12 recites “to deliver laser flow”. Examiner suggests replacing “to deliver laser flow” in line 11-12 of claim 1 with “configured to deliver laser flow” to put the claim in clearer form that the optical fiber is configured to deliver laser flow.
Claim 7 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 2 recites “the solution comprising the therapeutic agent”. Claim 7 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 introduces the solution as “a solution containing a therapeutic agent” in line 5-6. Examiner suggests replacing “the solution comprising the therapeutic agent” in line 2 of claim 7 with “the solution containing the therapeutic agent” to put the claim in clearer form.
Claim 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 3 recites “to focus the laser beam”. Examiner suggests replacing “to focus” in line 3 of claim 8 with “configured to focus” to put the claim in clearer form that the optical fiber is configured to focus.
Claim 11 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1-2 recites “a medical device according to claim 1”. As claim 1 provides antecedent basis for the medical device, Examiner suggests replacing “a medical device according to claim 1” with “the medical device according to claim 1”.
Claim 12 objected to because of the following informalities:
Line 1 recites “comprising :”. Examiner suggests removing the space between “comprising” and “:”.
Line 2 recites “a medical device according to claim 11”. As claim 1 provides antecedent basis for the medical device, Examiner suggests replacing “a medical device according to claim 11” with “the medical device according to claim 1”. See also 112 rejection of claim 12 below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. It is noted that “means for directing the laser beam” in claim 12 is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-13 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.
In regard to claim 1,
Line 1-3 recites “A medical device for delivery of a therapeutic agent by bioprinting comprising a rod body comprising a bioprinting cartridge”. It is unclear if the medical device or the therapeutic agent comprises a rod body. It is also unclear if the rod body, the therapeutic agent, or the medical device comprises a bioprinting cartridge. For examination purposes Examiner construes “A medical device for delivery of a therapeutic agent by bioprinting comprising a rod body comprising a bioprinting cartridge” to be “A medical device for delivery of a therapeutic agent by bioprinting, the medical device comprising a rod body, the rod body comprising a bioprinting cartridge”. Examiner suggests replacing “A medical device for delivery of a therapeutic agent by bioprinting comprising a rod body comprising a bioprinting cartridge” in line 1-3 of claim 1 with “A medical device for delivery of a therapeutic agent by bioprinting, the medical device comprising a rod body, the rod body comprising a bioprinting cartridge”.
Line 5-6 recites “a therapeutic agent”. Line 1-2 recites “a therapeutic agent”. It is unclear if the therapeutic agent of line 5-6 is a second therapeutic agent or is the same therapeutic agent as line 1-2. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “a therapeutic agent” in line 5-6 of claim 1 with “the therapeutic agent”.
Line 9 recites “said solution comprising a therapeutic agent”. Line 1-2 recites “a therapeutic agent” and line 5-6 recites “a solution containing a therapeutic agent. It is unclear if the therapeutic agent of line 9 is a different therapeutic agent than the therapeutic of line 1-2 and 5-6 or if the therapeutic agent of line 9 is the same therapeutic agent as line 1-2 and 5-6. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “said solution comprising a therapeutic agent” in line 9 of claim 1 with “said solution containing the therapeutic agent”.
In regard to claim 2,
Line 4 recites “the upper layer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Claim 2 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 introduces a top layer. It is unclear if the upper layer is the same layer as the top layer or if the upper layer is a different layer. If the upper layer is a different layer, it is unclear what structure it is of. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the upper layer” to be “the top layer”. Examiner suggests replacing “the upper layer” in line 4 of claim 2 with “the top layer”.
In regard to claim 3,
Line 2 recites “wherein the absorbent compound is diluted in the top layer”. Claim 3 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 claims the top layer and the absorbent compound as separate structures. The absorbent compound has not been claimed as being within the top layer. It is unclear if/how claim 3 is requiring the absorbent compound to be within the top layer and diluted if the absorbent compound is a separate structure from the top layer as claimed in claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner construes the absorbent compound to be separate from the top layer.
In regard to claim 6,
Line 2 recites “the therapeutic agent”. Claim 6 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a therapeutic agent” in line 1-2, 5-6, and 9. It is unclear which therapeutic agent the therapeutic agent of claim 6 refers to. For examination purposes Examiner construes the therapeutic agent of line 1-2, 5-6, and 9 of claim 1 to all be the same agent. Examiner suggests addressing the 112 issues above in line 5-6 and 9 of claim 1.
In regard to claim 7,
Line 2 and line 3 recite “the therapeutic agent”. Claim 7 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a therapeutic agent” in line 1-2, 5-6, and 9. It is unclear which therapeutic agent the therapeutic agent of claim 7 refers to. For examination purposes Examiner construes the therapeutic agent of line 1-2, 5-6, and 9 of claim 1 to all be the same agent. Examiner suggests addressing the 112 issues above in line 5-6 and 9 of claim 1.
In regard to claim 8,
Line 3 recites “the distal end of the optical fiber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the distal end of the optical fiber” to be “a distal end of the optical fiber”. Examiner suggests replacing “the distal end of the optical fiber” in line 3 of claim 8 with “a distal end of the optical fiber”.
Line 3 recites “the laser beam”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Claim 8 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 requires the optical fiber to be configured to deliver laser flow. It is unclear if the laser beam is the same or different than the laser flow. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “the laser beam” with “the laser flow”.
In regard to claim 10,
Line 2 recites “a plurality of co-axial optical fibers”. Claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “an optical fiber”. It is unclear if the optical fiber of claim 1 is included in the plurality of co-axial optical fibers or if claim 10 requires “a plurality of co-axial optical fibers” in addition to the optical fiber of claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes “a plurality of co-axial optical fibers” to include the optical fiber of claim 1. Examiner suggests amending claim 1 and the dependent claims accordingly to include “one or more co-axial optical fibers” instead of “an optical fiber” and amending claim 10 to require “the one or more co-axial optical fibers includes a plurality of co-axial optical fibers”.
Line 3 recites “a lumen of the rod body”. Claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a lumen of the rod body”. It is unclear if the lumen of the rod body in claim 10 is a second lumen of the rod body or if the lumen of the rod body in claim 10 is the same as the lumen of the rod body in claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “a lumen of the rod body” in line 3 of claim 10 with “the lumen of the rod body”.
Line 3 recites “a laser flow”. Claim 10 depends on claim 1. Claim 1 recites “to deliver laser flow”. It is unclear if the laser flow in claim 10 is the same or different than the laser flow in claim 1. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “a laser flow” in line 3 of claim 10 with “the laser flow”.
In regard to claim 11,
Line 1 recites “The medical system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. It is unclear if the medical system refers to the medical device or to a medical system. For examination purposes Examiner construes “The medical system” to be “A medical system”. Examiner suggests replacing “The medical system” in line 1 of claim 11 with “A medical system”.
Line 2-3 recites “the proximal end of the optical fiber”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. For examination purposes Examiner construes “the proximal end of the optical fiber” to be “a proximal end of the optical fiber”. Examiner suggests replacing “the proximal end of the optical fiber” in line 2-3 of claim 11 with “a proximal end of the optical fiber”.
In regard to claim 12,
Line 2 recites “a medical device according to claim 11”. Claim 11 is drawn to a medical system, not a medical device. Additionally, the medical device required in claim 11 is the medical device according to claim 1. It is unclear if the medical device required in claim 12 is the medical device according to claim 1 or the medical system according to claim 11. For examination purposes Examiner construes “a medical device according to claim 11” to be “the medical device according to claim 1”. Examiner suggests replacing “a medical device according to claim 11” in line 2 of claim 12 with “the medical device according to claim 1”.
Line 4 recites “the laser beam”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Claim 12 includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 requires the optical fiber to be configured to deliver laser flow. It is unclear if the laser beam is the same or different than the laser flow. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “the laser beam” with “the laser flow”.
Line 4 recites “the co-axial optical fibers”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation in this claim. Claim 12 includes the limitations of claim 1. Claim 1 requires a single optical fiber. It is unclear if the co-axial optical fibers is the same as the optical fiber. For examination purposes Examiner construes them to be the same. Examiner suggests replacing “the co-axial optical fibers” with “the optical fiber”.
Line 4-5 recites “to feed the co-axial optical fibers one after the other”. As a single optical fiber is required in claim 1, it is unclear what is meant by this. Additionally, it is unclear what the term “feed” is intended to mean. Examiner suggests replacing “to feed the co-axial optical fibers one after the other” with “to the optical fiber”.
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 1-3, 5-7, 9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Delrot (U.S. PG publication 20170028626).
In regard to claim 1,
Delrot discloses a medical device (see all of figure 1; paragraph [0011]-[0012] and [0003])) for the delivery of a therapeutic agent by bioprinting (paragraph [0011]-[0012] and [0003]; Examiner notes for the delivery of a therapeutic agent by bioprinting is a functional limitation. The medical device is fully capable of the recited function as supported by paragraph [0011]-[0012] and [0003]) comprising a rod body (figure 1, item 102) comprising:
a bioprinting cartridge (figure 1, item 104 and 100; paragraph [0011]; Examiner notes item 104 and 100 are construed as a bioprinting cartridge as they can be used for bioprinting) arranged near a distal end of the rod body (see figure 1) comprising:
a top layer (figure 2, item 100) comprising a solution containing a therapeutic agent (drug delivered to ear; paragraph [0012] and [0015]); and
an absorbent compound (absorbent element of film 104; paragraph [0015]) capable of converting light energy from laser radiation into thermal energy and arranged to cause heating of said solution comprising a therapeutic agent to cause a jet of said solution (paragraph [0010] and [0031]; Examiner notes “capable of converting light energy from laser radiation into thermal energy and arranged to cause heating of said solution comprising a therapeutic agent to cause a jet of said solution” is a functional limitation. The absorbent compound is fully capable of the recited function as supported by paragraph [0010] and [0031]);
an optical fiber (figure 1, item 103) extending longitudinally within a lumen of the rod body (see figure 1) to deliver laser flow onto the absorbent compound (paragraph [0015], [0010] and [0041]; Examiner notes “to deliver laser flow onto the absorbent compound” is a functional limitation. The optical fiber is fully capable of the recited function due to its structure as supported by paragraph [0015], [0010] and [0041]).
In regard to claim 2,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 1, wherein the bioprinting cartridge further comprises an absorbent layer (figure 1, item 104) comprising said absorbent compound (paragraph [0015]), said absorbent layer comprises a lower surface and an upper surface being arranged against the upper layer (see figure 1).
In regard to claim 3,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 1, wherein the absorbent compound is diluted in the top layer (see figure 1).
In regard to claim 5,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 1, wherein the absorbent compound comprises a metal (paragraph [0010]: gold; and paragraph [0031]).
In regard to claim 6,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 1, wherein the therapeutic agent comprises a therapeutic agent for intra-cochlear treatment (paragraph [0012]).
In regard to claim 7,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 1, wherein the solution comprising the therapeutic agent comprises a liquid solution, a viscous solution or a gelled solution in which the therapeutic agent is diluted (paragraph [0010]-[0011]).
In regard to claim 9,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 1, wherein the bioprinting cartridge is removably arranged in a receptacle of the rod body (Examiner notes the bioprinting cartridge is removably arranged in a receptacle of the rod body as item 104 and 100 can be removed and broken off from item 102).
In regard to claim 11,
Delrot discloses the medical system (see all of figure 1 and source which the pulse of laser light originates from; paragraph [0010] and [0041]) comprising a medical device according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and a laser source (source which the pulse of laser light originates from; paragraph [0010] and [0041]) connected to the proximal end of the optical fiber (paragraph [0010] and [0041]).
In regard to claim 13,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 5, wherein the metal is gold, titanium or silver (paragraph [0010]: gold).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 4, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delrot (U.S. PG publication 20170028626) further in view of Delrot (U.S. PG publication 20180371389). For clarity purposes Delrot (U.S. PG publication 20180371389) will be referred to as Delrot389.
In regard to claim 4,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 1.
Delrot is silent as to wherein the bioprinting cartridge further comprises a transparent support plate, arranged to support the top layer.
Delrot389 teaches wherein the bioprinting cartridge (paragraph [0002]) further comprises a transparent support plate (transparent solid layer 605; paragraph [0010] and [0027]), arranged to support the top layer (see figure 6; paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delrot to include wherein the bioprinting cartridge further comprises a transparent support plate, arranged to support the top layer, as taught by Delrot389, for the purpose of providing support (paragraph [0017] and [0027] of Delrot389).
In regard to claim 8,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 1, further comprising a focusing element arranged between the bioprinting cartridge and the distal end of the optical fiber (paragraph [0010] and [0031]) to focus the laser beam exiting from the optical fiber onto the absorbent compound (Examiner notes “to focus the laser beam exiting from the optical fiber onto the absorbent compound” is a functional limitation The focusing element is fully capable of the recited function due to its structure as supported by paragraph [0010] and [0031]).
Delrot is silent as to a focusing lens.
Delrot389 teaches a focusing lens (figure 6, item 600).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delrot389 to substitute the focusing lens in place of the focusing element of Delrot, as taught by Delrot389, because the substitution is a simple substitution that would yield the same predictable result of focusing light (paragraph [0027] of Delrot389 and paragraph [0010] and [0031] of Delrot). Furthermore, Delrot discloses modifications can be made (paragraph [0042] of Delrot).
In regard to claim 12,
Delrot discloses a medical system (see all of figure 1 and source which the pulse of laser light originates from; paragraph [0010] and [0041]), comprising :
a medical device according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11 above),
a laser source (source which the pulse of laser light originates from; paragraph [0010] and [0041]).
Delrot is silent as to means for directing the laser beam to feed the co-axial optical fibers one after the other.
Delrot389 teaches means (figure 6, item 600) for directing the laser beam to feed the co-axial optical fibers one after the other (Examiner notes “for directing the laser beam to feed the co-axial optical fibers one after the other” is a functional limitation. Item 600 is fully capable of the recited function due to its structure as supported by paragraph [0027]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Delrot to include means for directing the laser beam to feed the co-axial optical fibers one after the other, as taught by Delrot389, for the purpose of generating multiple droplets (paragraph [0027] of Delrot389).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Delrot (U.S. PG publication 20170028626).
In regard to claim 10,
Delrot discloses the medical device according to claim 1.
The first embodiment of Delrot is silent as to comprising a plurality of co-axial optical fibers each extending longitudinally within a lumen of the rod body for directing a laser flow onto the absorbent compound at a different position.
A second embodiment of Delrot teaches a plurality of co-axial optical fibers (bundle of optical fibers; paragraph [0010] and [0017]) each extending longitudinally within a lumen of the rod body (paragraph [0010]) for directing a laser flow onto the absorbent compound at a different position (paragraph [0010] and [0017]; Examiner notes “for directing a laser flow onto the absorbent compound at a different position” is a functional limitation. The plurality of co-axial optical fibers is fully capable of the recited function due to its structure) and that a single optical fiber or a bundle of optical fibers could all be used to achieve the same result (paragraph [0010]) and thus a single optical fiber or a bundle of optical fibers were art-recognized equivalents before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute a bundle of optical fibers in place of the single optical fiber since it has been held that substituting parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRA ELIZABETH LALONDE whose telephone number is (313)446-6594. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/ALEXANDRA LALONDE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KEVIN C SIRMONS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights