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.
(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 21-25 and 27-31, 33-38, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bukesov et al. (US 2021/0038310).
In re claim 21, Bukesov discloses a laser system (abstract) comprising:
a surgical laser (FIGS. 21A-21D: 1020) configured to emit laser electromagnetic radiation (“LASER OUTPUT”; [0106, 0107]);
at least one fiber-optic cable ([0156]: “multi-fiber accessory”; combination of 2120, 2114, 2116, shown in greater detail in FIG. 21C) having a proximal end (end closest to 1010) and a distal end (end closest to “TISSUE” 122),
the at least one fiber-optic cable configured
to receive the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser at the proximal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable (FIG. 21B) and
to transmit the laser electromagnetic radiation from the proximal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable to the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable and out of the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable onto a target surface (122; [0156]);
an illumination source (FIGS: 10A-10B: 1030; [0156]: “light source fibers 2214 may be coupled to the light source 1030”) configured to emit illuminating visible light ([0111]; see TABLE 2, Examiner notes “VIS” indicates visible light);
a monitoring sensor (1010) optically coupled to the proximal end of the at least one fiber- optic cable (FIG. 21B);
wherein the at least one fiber-optic cable is configured
to receive the illuminating visible light from the illumination source at the proximal end of the at least one fiber- optic cable (FIGS. 10A-10B) and
to transmit the illuminating visible light from the illumination source from the proximal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable to the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable and out of the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable onto the target surface (FIGS. 10A-10B; FIG. 21B; [0156]);and
wherein the monitoring sensor is configured to detect laser electromagnetic radiation returning to the proximal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable (“REFLECTED LIGHT”) from the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable (FIG. 21B; [0156]).
In re claim 22, Bukesov discloses,
wherein the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable is configured to direct the laser electromagnetic radiation and illuminating light out a distal end (right most end of 2110) of a handpiece (2110) onto the target surface (FIG. 21B), and
wherein the monitoring sensor detected returning laser electromagnetic radiation is used to determine a tip-to-tissue distance (“D”) of a handpiece tip (portion of 2110 that touches left dotted line) to a tissue (122) at the target surface ([0156]: “may determine the distance 1060 between the distal end of the endoscope 2110 and the target structure 122”).
In re claim 23, Bukesov discloses,
wherein the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable is configured to direct the laser electromagnetic radiation and illuminating light out a distal end (right most end of 2110) of a handpiece (2110) onto the target surface (FIG. 21B), and
wherein the monitoring sensor detected electromagnetic radiation is used to determine fluorescence properties of a tissue at the target surface [0110; 0077; 0132]
In re claim 24, Bukesov discloses,
wherein the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable is configured to direct the laser electromagnetic radiation and illuminating light out a distal end (right most end of 2110) of a handpiece (2110) onto the target surface (FIG. 21B), and
wherein the monitoring sensor detected returning laser electromagnetic radiation comprises Raman scattered light ([0110; 0077]: “Raman spectrometer”), and
wherein the Raman scattered light is used to identify a molecular composition of a tissue at the target surface [0110; 0132].
In re claim 25, Bukesov discloses, wherein the illumination source is configured to emit the illuminating visible light in pulses or continuously for a desired period of time [0156; 0115-0116].
In re claim 27, Bukesov discloses, wherein the fiber-optic cable comprises at least one optical fiber (2120, 2114, 2116) configured to receive the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser and the illuminating visible light from the illumination source (FIG. 21B; [0156]).
In re claim 28, Bukesov discloses, wherein the fiber-optic cable comprises
at least a first optical fiber (2120) configured to receive the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser (FIG. 21B; [0156]) and
at least a second optical fiber (2114) configured to receive the illuminating visible light from the illumination source ([0156]: “light source fibers 2114 may be coupled to light source 1030”).
In re claim 29, Bukesov discloses, further comprising a *beam combining component (FIGS. 10A-10B: portion of 910 that receives output from 1020 and 1030; [0198]) configured to combine the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser and the illuminating visible light from the illumination source along a common optical path ([0108]: “the same laser fiber 912 used for transmitting laser beams”);
*Examiner notes that the term “beam combining component” is broad and is interpreted to mean any component that facilitates the two types of energy (i.e., laser electromagnetic radiation and illuminating visible light) being transmitted along a “common optical path”.
In re claim 30, Bukesov discloses,
wherein the beam combining component is adapted to permit the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser to pass through the beam combining component to the at least one fiber-optic cable ([0108]: apparent as “the laser electromagnetic radiation” both passes through the “beam combining component”, see FIGS. 10A-10B, and is “transmitted” by the]: “laser fiber 912” additionally see [0198]), and
wherein the beam combining component is adapted to direct the illuminating visible light from the illumination source to the at least one fiber-optic cable ([0108]: apparent as “illuminating visible light from the illumination source” is transmitted via “the same laser fiber 912 used for transmitting laser beams”; additionally see [0198]).
In re claim 31, Bukesov discloses,
wherein the beam combining component is adapted to direct the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser to the at least one fiber-optic cable ([0108]: apparent as “laser electromagnetic radiation” is transmitted via “laser fiber 912”; additionally see [0198]), and
wherein the beam combining component is adapted to permit the illuminating visible light from the illumination source to pass through the beam combining component to the at least one fiber-optic cable (apparent as “illuminating visible light from the illumination sources” both passes through the “beam combining component”, see FIGS. 10A-10B, and is transmitted by the [0108]: “the same laser fiber 912 used for transmitting laser beams”; additionally see [0198]).
In re claim 33, Bukesov discloses, further comprising
a laser housing ([0154]: outer structure of “endoscope 2110”),
wherein the surgical laser is located inside the laser housing [0105; 0195; 0197], and
wherein the at least one fiber-optic cable is adapted to be removably connected to the laser housing [0114; 0195; 0197].
In re claim 34, see above (In re claim 21).
Bukesov also discloses, a method of operating a laser system (abstract).
In re claim 35, see above (In re claim 22).
In re claim 36, see above (In re claim 23).
In re claim 37, see above (In re claim 24).
In re claim 38, see above (In re claim 25).
In re claim 41, Bukesov discloses, wherein emitting laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser to the at least one fiber-optic cable comprises emitting laser electromagnetic radiation in a mid-infrared range from the surgical laser ([0106, 0107]: “These laser systems produce a laser output beam in a wide wavelength range from UV to IR area (200 nm to 10000nm)”; Examiner notes Applicant defines “mid-infrared” being wavelengths ranging between 2.0 microns to about 4 microns, that is, 2000 nm to 4000 nm (see Applicant’s Specification [0031]).
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.
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.
Claims 26, 39 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bukesov et al. (US 2021/0038310), in view of McDonell et al. (US 2016/0175149).
In re claim 26, Bukesov discloses,
wherein the surgical laser is configured to emit the laser electromagnetic radiation in pulses ([0145-0148]; Examples of “pulses” shown in FIG. 27) ,
wherein the illumination source is configured to emit the illuminating visible light ([0111]; TABLE 2) , and
wherein the laser system is configured to synchronize the pulses from the surgical laser and the illuminating visible light from the illumination source [0116; 0197].
Bukesov is silent over
wherein the illumination source is configured to emit the illuminating visible light in pulses, and
wherein the laser system is configured to synchronize the pulses from the surgical laser and the pulses from the illumination source to create a stroboscopic effect.
McDonell discloses a surgical system that, like Bukesov, includes a light source configured to illuminate a surgical field. McDonell further discloses configuring the light source to emit illumination light in pulses [0027]. As discussed in McDonell, configuring the light source to emit illumination light in pulses is advantageous as it makes the surgical field viewed by an operator appear slower thereby enabling the operator to more clearly observe changes that occur in the surgical field [0022; 0037; 0032].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the illumination source of Bukesov to be configured to emit the illuminating visible light in pulses, as taught by McDonell. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would create a slow-motion effect making it easier for the operator to clearly observe changes that occur in the surgical field. Accordingly, such a modification would yield “a stroboscopic effect” .
In re claim 39, see above (In re claim 26).
In re claim 40, the proposed combination yields, wherein the strobic effect is a slow-motion effect (McDonell, [0022; 0046]).
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bukesov et al. (US 2021/0038310), in view of Diao et al. (US 2014/0180264).
In re claim 32, Bukesov does not disclose,
wherein the at least one fiber-optic cable comprises a delivery fiber-optic cable and an output fiber-optic cable each having a proximal end and a distal end,
wherein the output fiber-optic cable is positioned distal to the delivery fiber-optic cable, and
wherein the proximal end of the output fiber-optic cable is configured to receive the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser and the illuminating visible light from the illumination source from the distal end of the delivery fiber-optic cable.
Diao discloses a surgical laser device (FIG. 1) that, like the laser system of Bukesov, directs laser electromagnetic radiation (105) to a tissue of a patient (“Patient’s eye”). As shown in FIG. 1, the surgical device includes an output fiber (110) positioned distally to a delivery fiber (145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the at least one fiber-optic cable of Bukesov to comprise a delivery fiber optic cable and an output fiber-optic cable each having a proximal end and a distal end, wherein the output fiber-optic cable is positioned distal to the delivery fiber-optic cable, as taught by Diao. One would have been motivated to make this modification because doing so would make it possible to dispose of the portion of the surgical laser device that comes into contact with the patient’s eye without having to dispose of the entire system (Diao, [0029; 0040]). Accordingly, such a modification would yield “wherein the proximal end of the output fiber-optic cable is configured to receive the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser and the illuminating visible light from the illumination source from the distal end of the delivery fiber-optic cable.”
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bukesov et al. (US 2021/0038310), in view of Schaible (US 5,695,461).
In re claim 42, Bukesov discloses, further comprising directing the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser from the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable to a tissue (122; FIG. 21B; [0156]).
Bukesov does not disclose, further comprising directing the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser from the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable to a cataractous lens to fragment the cataractous lens.
Schaible discloses a surgical laser system (abstract) that, like Bukesov, directs laser electromagnetic radiation (abstract: energy emitted from “YAG laser”) to a tissue of a patient (abstract; col. 1, lines 13-21). Schaible further discloses the tissue being a cataractous lens which fragments upon being treated with laser electromagnetic radiation (col. 7, lines 25-28).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Bukesov to direct the laser electromagnetic radiation from the surgical laser from the distal end of the at least one fiber-optic cable to a cataractous lens to fragment the cataractous lens, as taught by Schaible. One would have been motivated to make this modification given that it is known in the art to use electromagnetic radiation to perform cataract surgery which involves fragmenting the cataractous lens, as evidenced by Schaible (col. 7, lines 25-28).
Conclusion
The following prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Horn et al. (US 2019/0142544) discloses a laser system (FIG. 15) with a beam coupling component (“BEAM SPLITTER”) that combines illumination light (“WHITE LIGHT”) and laser light (“GREEN LASER/RED LASER) into a single core fiber (1210; [0025]).
Brennen et al. (US 8,906475) discloses a laser surgical system (FIG. 2A) that comprises a laser light source (“LASER THERAPY LIGHT SOURCE”), an illumination source (“WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATION SOURCE”) a monitoring sensor (“OCT LASER LIGHT SOURCE & OCT ENGINE”) and at least one optical fiber (230, shown in greater detail in FIG. 2B as 230-1, 230-2, 230-3). Brennen further discloses determining a distance between a probe tip (right most end of 210) of the laser surgical system and a target tissue by measuring an amount of reflected light captured by a probe lens (col. 7, lines 3-8).
Ben Nun (US 6,419,627) discloses a laser system (FIG. 1) used in ophthalmic applications (abstract). As disclosed by Ben Nun, the laser system includes an illumination light source (4), a laser source (6), at least one optical fiber (2, shown in greater detail in FIG. 4), and a sensor (37).
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OLIVIA WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-7052. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 7-4pm CT.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571)-270-5625. 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.
/OLIVIA WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/DAVID HAMAOUI/SPE, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights