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 .
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 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bacher et al. (US 2018/0353328 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bacher discloses a beam delivery system (100) for a probe (106) (Fig. 1; [0018]), the system comprising:
at least one laser source (110) configured to generate a respective incident beam, including a first laser source generating a first incident beam (Fig. 1, 4A; Abstract; [0018]; [0020], lines 7-12);
routing structures (112, 404) respectively positioned along a path of the respective incident beam, including a first routing structure in the path of the first incident beam, the probe being in communication with a multi-core fiber (114) (Fig. 1, 4A; [0018]; [0020], lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; [0032]);
an optical subsystem (408) adapted to direct a respective output beam from the routing structures into the multi-core fiber, the respective output beam being sequentially directed into each core of the multi-core fiber (where an embodiment described in paragraph [0032] discloses that lens 408 may be disposed in the optical switching device, i.e., one unit comprising both routing structures and the optical subsystem) (Fig. 1, 4A; [0018]; [0020], lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; [0032]-[0033]).
Regarding claim 12, Bacher discloses the system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further discloses
a controller (104) configured to pulse the first and second laser sources such that each laser beam generated by the first and second laser sources is only active when the laser beam is residing within a respective core region of the multi-core fiber (Fig. 1; [0021]); and
wherein the controller has at least one processor and at least one non-transitory, tangible memory on which instructions are recorded; and
wherein a time-averaged power of the laser beam equals a continuous wave power of a non-pulsed beam ([0021], last 16 lines).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 2, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious, the system of claim 1, wherein the at least one laser source further includes a second laser source generating a second incident beam; wherein the routing structures further comprise a second routing structure in the path of the second incident beam; wherein the routing structures respectively include an array of optical elements, the routing structures being adapted to be synchronously moved such that the first incident beam and the second incident beam encounter an identical member of the array at a same time.
With regard to the above claim, US 2018/0353328 A1 to Bacher discloses an ophthalmic surgical system comprising a laser source (110), routing structures (112, 404) and an optical subsystem (408) configured to generate optical pulses for causing photodisruption in the vitreous humor (Fig. 1, 4A; Abstract; [0018]; [0020], lines 1-12 and the last 7 lines; [0032]-[0033]). The system is able to direct optical pulses generated by the laser source towards an optical switching device, interpreted as comprising the routing structures and optical subsystem, and selecting, via the optical switching device, a core of a multicore optical fiber (114) (Fig. 1; [0018]; [0020]). However, Bacher fails to disclose a second laser source generating a second incident beam; a second routing structure in the path of the second incident beam; wherein the routing structures respectively include an array of optical elements, the routing structures being adapted to be synchronously moved such that the first incident beam and the second incident beam encounter an identical member of the array at a same time. Similarly, US 11331219 B2 to Farley discloses an optical probe (40) for treating the eye of a patient comprising a body (45), a tubular element (50) having a main lumen, an optical fiber (155) within the main lumen adapted to emit illumination provided by at least one of a plurality of light sources (150) connected to the optical fiber. Farley further describes an embodiment which includes an optical switching system (130) operable with the plurality of light sources which may be used to implement time-division multiplexing where quasi-simultaneous illumination delivery through the same optical path is achieved (Fig. 4-5; Abstract; Col. 4, lines 21-36 and lines 55-58; Col. 5, lines 23-26; Col. 6, lines 30-35; Col. 8, lines 23-34 and 53-64). Though Farley discloses using a plurality of light sources and an optical switching system, interpreted as a routing structure and/or optical subsystem, which is able to independently control the plurality of light sources and interface with the probe using a single-mode fiber, Farley fails to disclose coupling incident light to a multicore fiber or a second routing structure in the path of the second incident beam; wherein the routing structures respectively include an array of optical elements, the routing structures being adapted to be synchronously moved such that the first incident beam and the second incident beam encounter an identical member of the array at a same time. US 2021/0341668 A1 to Swanson discloses an optical probe imaging system (301) which comprises an optical probe (306), a multicore optical fiber (304), distal optics (307), a distal motor (310) mechanically coupled to the optical probe, a swept laser source (330) and an optical receiver (334) (Fig. 3; [0031]) where the distal optics are optically coupled to the distal end of the multicore fiber such that image light propagating in the multicore fiber can generate a light pattern on a sample based on a relative position of at least two cores. Swanson further discloses that the distal motor mechanically coupled to the optical probe causes the light pattern to traverse a path across the sample and light received on a proximal end of the multicore fiber by the optical receiver generates a signal which allows for mapping of information about the sample along a given path ([0037]). However, Swanson fails to explicitly disclose a second routing structure in the path of the second incident beam; wherein the routing structures respectively include an array of optical elements, the routing structures being adapted to be synchronously moved such that the first incident beam and the second incident beam encounter an identical member of the array at a same time. Lastly, US 2013/0057945 A1 to Ueno discloses an optical-path-switching apparatus capable of guiding signal and control light in a way which differentiates respective convergence points in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis, the apparatus comprising a wedge-shaped prism/hexagonal truncate pyramid prism (9), a plurality of light sources and a multicore optical fiber bundle (210) (Fig. 1-2; [0048]-[0051]; [0087]; [0091]; [0192]). Though Ueno discloses integrating six wedge pieces into a hexagonal truncated pyramid prism, interpreted as routing structures, for transmitting light from two or more light sources for coupling into the multicore fiber, Ueno fails to explicitly disclose wherein the routing structures respectively include an array of optical elements, the routing structures being adapted to be synchronously moved such that the first incident beam and the second incident beam encounter an identical member of the array at a same time.
All combinations of prior art references listed above or previously cited failed to specifically disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to find prior art that is analogous to the invention claimed or any motivation suggesting a similar system or purpose. As such, claim 2 would be allowable if the rejection to claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) is overcome. Claims 3-11 would be allowed due to their dependence on claim 2.
Claims 13-15 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 13, the prior art, alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a beam delivery system for a probe, the system comprising: a plurality of laser sources configured to generate a respective incident beam, including a first laser source generating a first incident beam and a second laser source generating a second incident beam; routing structures respectively positioned along a path of the respective incident beam, including a first routing structure in the path of the first incident beam and a second routing structure in the path of the second incident beam, the probe being in communication with a multi-core fiber; an optical subsystem adapted to sequentially direct a respective output beam from the routing structures respectively into each core of the multi-core fiber; and wherein the first routing structure and the second routing structure respectively include an array of optical elements synchronously movable between respective positions corresponding to each core of the multi-core fiber.
All combinations of prior art references listed above or previously cited failed to specifically disclose the limitations emphasized in bold wording above. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to find prior art that is analogous to the invention claimed or any motivation suggesting a similar system or purpose for the same reasoning outlined above for claim 2. As such, claim 13 has been found allowable. Claims 14-15 are allowed due to their dependence on claim 13.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHER YAZBACK whose telephone number is (703)756-1456. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571)270-5789. 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.
/MAHER YAZBACK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights