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
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasner et al. (US 4,827,098).
Regarding claim 1, Kasner discloses a device (Figs. 4-11) comprising:
a source (col. 5, lines 11-13) configured to provide a beam of electromagnetic energy (B);
a collimator (col. 5, lines 11-13) configured to receive the beam from the source (Figs. 4-11);
a first optical element (e.g., L1, L2); and
a second optical element (e.g., L3, L4) having an optical axis (A),
wherein the first optical element (L1, L2) is positioned between the collimator and the second optical element (L3, L4) (Figs. 4-11), and the first optical element (L1, L2) is configured to correct for misalignment of the beam (B) relative to the optical axis (A) of the second optical element (L3, L4) (col. 5, lines 58-61; col. 9, line 67 – col. 10, line 2).
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 2-9, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasner et al. (US 4,827,098), as applied to claim 1 above for claims 2-9 and 15, and further in view of Bhawalkar et al. (US 2021/0138261), of record.
Regarding claims 2-4, Kasner fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first optical element comprises a first prism and a second prism positioned adjacent to the first prism, wherein the first prism is a first cylinder having a first base, a second base opposite to the first base, and a cylindrical surface connecting the first base to the second base, and the first base of the first prism has a first wedge angle relative to the second base of the first prism, and wherein the second prism is a second cylinder having a first base, a second base opposite to the first base, and a cylindrical surface connecting the first base to the second base, and the first base of the second prism has a second wedge angle relative to the second base of the second prism.
However, Bhawalkar discloses a device (Figs. 1, 21), wherein the first optical element (2802) comprises a first prism (2806) and a second prism (2808) positioned adjacent to the first prism (Fig. 21), wherein the first prism (2806) is a first cylinder having a first base, a second base opposite to the first base, and a cylindrical surface connecting the first base to the second base, and the first base of the first prism has a first wedge angle relative to the second base of the first prism (Figs. 21), and wherein the second prism (2808) is a second cylinder having a first base, a second base opposite to the first base, and a cylindrical surface connecting the first base to the second base, and the first base of the second prism has a second wedge angle relative to the second base of the second prism (Fig. 21).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the first optical element comprises a first prism and a second prism positioned adjacent to the first prism, wherein the first prism is a first cylinder having a first base, a second base opposite to the first base, and a cylindrical surface connecting the first base to the second base, and the first base of the first prism has a first wedge angle relative to the second base of the first prism, and wherein the second prism is a second cylinder having a first base, a second base opposite to the first base, and a cylindrical surface connecting the first base to the second base, and the first base of the second prism has a second wedge angle relative to the second base of the second prism, as in Bhawalkar, into the device of Kasner to effectively alter the direction of incident light as desired (Bhawalkar, para. [0170]).
Regarding claims 5-7, Kasner fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first wedge angle is equal to the second wedge angle, wherein the first wedge angle and the second wedge angle are greater than 0 degrees and less than or equal to about 3 degrees, and wherein the first wedge angle and the second wedge angle are equal to about 0.5 degrees.
However, Bhawalkar discloses wherein the first wedge angle (of 116, Fig. 1) is equal to the second wedge angle (of 122, Fig. 1) (para. [0111]),
wherein the first wedge angle (of 116) and the second wedge angle (of 122) are greater than 0 degrees and less than or equal to about 3 degrees (Table 5), and
wherein the first wedge angle (of 116) and the second wedge angle (of 122) are equal to about 0.5 degrees (Table 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate wherein the first wedge angle is equal to the second wedge angle, wherein the first wedge angle and the second wedge angle are greater than 0 degrees and less than or equal to about 3 degrees, and wherein the first wedge angle and the second wedge angle are equal to about 0.5 degrees, as in Bhawalkar, into the device of Kasner to precisely control the energy profile.
Regarding claim 8, Kasner discloses wherein the second base of the first element (L1) is arranged adjacent to the second base of the second element (L2) (Figs. 4-11).
Bhawalkar further discloses first and second prisms (2806, 2808, Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 9, Kasner discloses wherein the beam of electromagnetic energy (B) is incident on the first base of the first element (L1) (Figs. 4-11).
Bhawalkar further discloses the first prism (2806, Fig. 21).
Regarding claim 15, Kasner fails to explicitly disclose a handpiece configured and dimensioned to be manually grasped, wherein the collimator, the first optical element, and the second optical element are positioned inside the handpiece.
However, Bhawalkar discloses a device (Figs. 1, 11, 21) further comprising:
a handpiece (1100, Fig. 11) configured and dimensioned to be manually grasped (paras. [0151-0152]),
wherein the collimator (1110), the first optical element (1112), and the second optical element (1116) are positioned inside the handpiece (Fig. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a handpiece configured and dimensioned to be manually grasped, wherein the collimator, the first optical element, and the second optical element are positioned inside the handpiece, as in Bhawalkar, into the device of Kasner to use the device for manual treatment as desired.
Regarding claim 20, Kasner discloses a method (Figs. 4-11) comprising:
directing a beam of electromagnetic energy (B) though a collimator (col. 5, lines 11-13) to a first optical element (e.g., L1, L2); and
a first element (L1) of the first optical element relative to a second element (L2) of the first optical element to correct for misalignment of the beam (B) relative to an optical axis (A) of a second optical element (e.g., L3, L4) downstream from the first optical element (col. 5, lines 58-61; col. 9, line 67 – col. 10, line 2).
Kasner fails to explicitly disclose rotating a first prism of the first optical element relative to a second prism of the first optical element.
However, Bhawalkar discloses a method (Fig. 21) comprising:
rotating a first prism (2806) of the first optical element (2802) relative to a second prism (2808) of the first optical element (para. [0170]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate rotating a first prism of the first optical element relative to a second prism of the first optical element, as in Kasner, into the method of Kasner to effectively alter the direction of incident light as desired.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasner et al. (US 4,827,098), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of DeBenedictis et al. (US 2006/0217695), of record.
Regarding claims 16-18, Kasner discloses wherein the source is a laser (col. 5, lines 11-13).
Kasner fails to explicitly disclose an optical fiber connecting the source with the collimator, wherein the source comprises laser diode, and wherein the source is a fiber-coupled laser diode that is terminated by the collimator.
However, DeBenedictis discloses a device (Figs. 1-10) comprising:
an optical fiber (120) connecting the source (110) with the collimator (152) (Fig. 1),
wherein the source (110) comprises laser diode (para. [0035]), and
wherein the source (110) is a fiber-coupled laser diode that is terminated by the collimator (152) (Fig. 1; paras. [0031, 0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an optical fiber connecting the source with the collimator, wherein the source comprises laser diode, and wherein the source is a fiber-coupled laser diode that is terminated by the collimator, as in DeBenedictis, into the device of Kasner for effective beam transmission, and to use a common, safe laser.
Regarding claim 19, Kasner fails to explicitly disclose a scanner wheel configured to spin about an axis of rotation, the scanner wheel having a plurality of reflective elements arranged about a circumference that are configured to receive the beam from the second optical element and generates a plurality of beamlets from the beam that are output from the scanner wheel in a pattern.
However, DeBenedictis discloses a device (Figs. 1-10) comprising a scanner wheel (760) configured to spin about an axis of rotation (704), the scanner wheel having a plurality of reflective elements (708) arranged about a circumference that are configured to receive the beam (790, 801) from the second optical element (762) and generates a plurality of beamlets (805) from the beam that are output from the scanner wheel in a pattern (Figs. 7-9; paras. [0064, 0067-0068]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a scanner wheel configured to spin about an axis of rotation, the scanner wheel having a plurality of reflective elements arranged about a circumference that are configured to receive the beam from the second optical element and generates a plurality of beamlets from the beam that are output from the scanner wheel in a pattern, as in DeBenedictis, into the device of Kasner to effectively treat small target zones (DeBenedictis, para. [0064]).
Claims 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasner et al. (US 4,827,098) in view of Bhawalkar et al. (US 2021/0138261), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Yuan et al. (US 2022/0015830), of record.
Regarding claim 10-12 and 14, Kasner discloses a first sleeve (S) configured to support the first element (L1), and a second sleeve (S) configured to support the second element (L2) (Figs. 4-11).
Kasner in view of Bhawalkar fails to explicitly discloses a plurality of clamps having a clamped state and an unclamped state; the first sleeve configured to support the first prism, the first sleeve positioned inside the clamps; and the second sleeve configured to support the second prism, the second sleeve placed inside the clamps, wherein the first sleeve and the second sleeve are rotatable when the clamps are in the unclamped state, and the first sleeve and the second sleeve are fixed when the clamps are in the clamped state, wherein the first sleeve includes a plurality of slots that are engageable by a tool for rotating the first sleeve and the first prism relative to the clamps when the clamps are in the unclamped state; and a plurality of fasteners connecting different portions of the clamps, the fasteners configured to be tightened to establish the clamped state and loosened to establish the unclamped state.
However, Yuan discloses a device (Figs. 1-6) comprising:
a plurality of clamps (6, 7, Fig. 2A) having a clamped state and an unclamped state (para. [0066]);
a first sleeve (3) configured to support the first prism (18+19), the first sleeve positioned inside the clamps (Figs. 2A, 5); and
a second sleeve (20+3) configured to support the second prism (17+16), the second sleeve placed inside the clamps (Figs. 2A, 5),
wherein the first sleeve and the second sleeve are rotatable when the clamps are in the unclamped state, and the first sleeve and the second sleeve are fixed when the clamps are in the clamped state (Figs. 1-5; paras. [0066, 0069, 0071]),
wherein the first sleeve includes a plurality of slots (3-A, Fig. 2A) that are engageable by a tool for rotating the first sleeve and the first prism relative to the clamps when the clamps are in the unclamped state (Figs. 2A, 5); and
a plurality of fasteners (19-1, 20-1) connecting different portions of the clamps, the fasteners configured to be tightened to establish the clamped state and loosened to establish the unclamped state (Figs. 1-5; para. [0071]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate a plurality of clamps having a clamped state and an unclamped state; a first sleeve configured to support the first prism, the first sleeve positioned inside the clamps; and a second sleeve configured to support the second prism, the second sleeve placed inside the clamps, wherein the first sleeve and the second sleeve are rotatable when the clamps are in the unclamped state, and the first sleeve and the second sleeve are fixed when the clamps are in the clamped state, wherein the first sleeve includes a plurality of slots that are engageable by a tool for rotating the first sleeve and the first prism relative to the clamps when the clamps are in the unclamped state; and a plurality of fasteners connecting different portions of the clamps, the fasteners configured to be tightened to establish the clamped state and loosened to establish the unclamped state, as in Yuan, into the device of Kasner and Bhawalkar to lock the components within the device and to provide access to them as desired.
Regarding claim 13, Kasner discloses wherein the first element (L1) has an optical axis (A), and the first element has an axis of rotation that coincides with the optical axis (Figs. 4-11).
Bhawalkar further discloses the first prism (2806, Fig. 21).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments (see Remarks, filed August 4, 2026), with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over DeBenedictis have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kasner as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAISLEY L WILSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5023. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00am-5:00pm ET.
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, MICHAEL CALEY can be reached at 571-272-2286. 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.
/PAISLEY L WILSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2871
Prosecution Insights