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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-196511, filed on December 02, 2021.
Information Disclosure Statement
The prior art documents submitted by applicant in the Information Disclosure Statements filed on May 28, 2024 have all been considered and made of record (note the attached copies of form PTO-1449).
Drawings
Three (3) sheets of drawings were filed on May 28, 2024.
Specification
Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become
aware in the specification.
Inventorship
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims
the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the
effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is
advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of
each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in
order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35
U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being Anticipated by Takata et al. (WO2023281918A1), hereafter Takata.
Regarding claim 1, Takata discloses A light diffusion device(Light Emitting Medical Apparatus 1) comprising: an optical fiber (Optical fiber 20) including a core located at a center in a radial direction (FIG. 3) and a cladding (First clad 26) adjacent to an outer periphery of the core (Abstract. FIG. 3), the light diffusion device emitting, from a tip side of the optical fiber, light that is incident from a base end portion of the optical fiber (Page 3 Par. 2 Lines 12-20), wherein the optical fiber includes: a light transmitting part (FIG. 3 :First Section 31. FIG.1 Transmission line 20. Page 4 Par. 7 line 1) that transmits, toward a tip (Distal tip 15), the light that is incident from the base end portion; and a light emitting part (Light diffusing portion 21) that, due to removal of an outer peripheral portion of the cladding from the cladding in the tip side, emits, from an outer peripheral surface (Radially outward) of the light emitting part, the light transmitted through the light transmitting part (Page 3 Par. 2 Lines 12-20), and the cladding (Second clad 27) in the light emitting part (Light diffusion portion 21) has a maximum thickness smaller than a thickness of the cladding (First clad 26) in the light transmitting part (First Section 31; page 4. Lines 8-10) .
Regarding claim 3, Takata discloses the device of claim 1. Takata further discloses the light emitting part (Light diffusing portion 21. Page 5. Par. 4. Lines 3-4) is formed in at least a part of the outer peripheral surface (Peripheral surface 23) of the tip side (distal tip 15) of the optical fiber in a circumferential direction (FIG. 3. Page 5. Par. 3. Lines 2-3 and Page 9 Par. 5. Lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 4, Takata discloses the device of claim 3. Takata further discloses the light emitting part (Light diffusing portion 21. Page 5. Par. 4. Lines 3-4) is formed on a portion of 30% or more (FIG. 5) of the outer peripheral surface (Peripheral surface 23) of the tip side (distal tip 15) of the optical fiber in the circumferential direction (FIG. 3. Page 5. Par. 3. Lines 2-3 and Page 9 Par. 5. Lines 9-11).
Regarding claim 12, Takata discloses the device of claim 1. Takata further discloses the optical fiber is formed from a resin member (Page 4. Par. 2 Line 1-3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 2, 5, 7-8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al. (WO2023281918A1), hereafter Takata.
Regarding claim 2, Takata discloses the device of claim 1. Takata further discloses the maximum thickness of the cladding (Second clad 27) in the light emitting part (Light diffusing portion 21) is smaller than the thickness of the cladding (First clad 26) in the light transmitting part (First Section 31) .
Takata fails to teach the thickness in smaller by at least a wavelength of the light transmitted through the light transmitting part. However, cladding thickness functions as a result-effective variable that person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize to achieve predictable emission control.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the differences in thickness by at least one wavelength. Intentionally thinning the cladding enables precise, predictable control over how much light is scattered or "leaks" at a specific location, adjusting the thickness by exact metric measurements (such as a single wavelength) would be considered a routine, obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 5, Takata discloses the device of claim 1. Takata further discloses the light emitting part (Light diffusing portion 21) has an uneven surface (Second Clad 27) formed along the circumferential direction (FIG. 3).
Takata fails to disclose the thickness of the cladding in the light emitting part is such that a height difference between a portion where the uneven surface protrudes most toward the outer periphery and a portion where the uneven surface protrudes least toward the outer periphery is at most a wavelength of the light transmitted through the light transmitting part. However, cladding thickness functions as a result-effective variable that person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize to achieve predictable emission control.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the differences in thickness by at least one wavelength. Intentionally thinning the cladding enables precise, predictable control over how much light is scattered or "leaks" at a specific location, adjusting the thickness by exact metric measurements (such as a single wavelength) would be considered a routine, obvious design choice.
Regarding claim 7, Takata discloses the device of claim 1. Takata further discloses the light emitting part (Light diffusing portion 21) has an uneven surface formed over the outer peripheral surface in a circumferential direction (FIG. 2 and 3), and a diameter (Db) of a minimum circumscribed circle that is a circle passing through a protruding point of the uneven surface is smaller than a diameter of the light transmitting part (See annotated FIG. 3).
Takata fails to disclose and a diameter (Db) of a minimum circumscribed circle that is a circle passing through a protruding point of the uneven surface is smaller than a diameter of the light transmitting part by at least a wavelength. However, the specific dimensional difference between the diameters is a recognized result-effective variable that person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize to achieve predictable emission control.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the differences in diameters by at least one wavelength. Modifying the diameter difference to optimize light extraction efficiency, internal reflection, or structural tolerance is a matter of obvious design optimization, well within the expected skill set of person of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 8, Takata discloses the device of claim 1. Takata further discloses the light emitting part (Light diffusing portion 21) has an uneven surface formed over the outer peripheral surface in a circumferential direction (FIG. 2 and 3), and a diameter (Dc) of a maximum inscribed circle that is a circle passing through a recessing point of the uneven surface is smaller than a diameter of the light transmitting part (See annotated FIG.3).
Takata fails to disclose a diameter (Dc) of a maximum inscribed circle that is a circle passing through a recessing point of the uneven surface is smaller than a diameter of the light transmitting part by at least a wavelength. However, the specific dimensional difference between the diameters is a recognized result-effective variable that person of ordinary skill in the art would routinely optimize to achieve predictable emission control.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the differences in diameters by at least one wavelength. Modifying the diameter difference to optimize light extraction efficiency, internal reflection, or structural tolerance is a matter of obvious design optimization, well within the expected skill set of person of ordinary skill in the art.
PNG
media_image1.png
700
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Takata discloses the device of claim 1. Takata fails to disclose the core and the cladding have a difference in refractive index that is 2% or greater and 11% or less.
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this specific refractive index difference for optical fibers intended as light-diffusion devices, such as photoimmunotherapy devices. The fundamental mathematical boundary conditions of fiber optics dictate that higher RI contrast broadens the emission angle of the guided modes. A person of ordinary seeking a light-diffusing cable for applications like photoimmunotherapy would recognize that expanding this contrast systematically reduces the fiber's light-guiding efficiency. Additionally, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 6 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takata et al. (WO2023281918A1), hereafter Takata as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Baker et al. (US5207669A), hereafter Baker.
Regarding claim 6, Takata discloses the device of claim 1. Takata further discloses a cladding (First and Second clad 26 and 27). Takata fails to disclose the cladding has a thickness of 1 µm or greater and 50 µm or less.
Baker teaches a cladding thickness of one µm (Column 3 lines 57-60).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the cladding have a thickness of 1 µm or greater and 50 µm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 9 and 10, Takata discloses the device of claim 1. Takata fails to disclose the cladding in the light transmitting part has an outer diameter of 102 µm or greater and 1100 µm or less.
Baker discloses cladding in the light transmitting part has an outer diameter of 105 µm (Column 7 lines 45-63).
Before the effective filing date of the present invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the cladding in the light transmitting part has an outer diameter of 102 µm or greater and 1100 µm or less, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges through routine experimentation involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s
disclosure:
➢Rose et al. (EP 3663816 A1) see the entire disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAJANAE N GREEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2188. The examiner can normally be reached Tues-Fri. 5:30a-3:30p.
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, Uyen-Chau Le can be reached at (571) 272-2397. 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.
/TAJANAE NICOLE GREEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2874
/UYEN CHAU N LE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2874
Prosecution Insights