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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/6/2025 and 5/27/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “refracted light”/“refractive surface” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. It is noted that no refraction of any kind in any of the Figures is illustrated at or in the “refractive surface”. It is further noted that only reflection is illustrated in any of the Figures at the “refractive surface”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 7-12 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.
Regarding Claims 7-12, It is generally unclear how a reflective member can have a refractive surface. The disclosure, including the Figures, does not illustrate any light entering the bulk of the rod-shaped member. Further unclear per claim 9 is how the refractive surface can comprise “a vapor-deposited metal” as such would seemingly prevent light from refracting through said surface. Claims will be examined below as best understood.
The term “unevenness” in claim 11 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “unevenness” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Thus, unevenness and its measurement as it compares to the wavelength of the generated light is unclear. Claim 11 will be rejected below as best understood.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Griffin et al. (US 2021/0330383, hereinafter Griffin).
In regards to claim 1, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A, 19B, and 15A, a light diffusion device for photoimmunotherapy or photodynamic therapy (Par. [0002]), the light diffusion device comprising: an optical transmission cable (405) configured to transmit light emitted from a light source (see Fig. 19B) and emit the transmitted light from an emission surface of a distal end part (at 425, see Fig. 19A); and a covering layer (420 or alternatively 230 of Fig. 15A) having at least one of a function of absorbing the light or a function of scattering the light (Par. [0108, alternatively 0089], the covering layer covering the optical transmission cable (see Fig. 19A, alternatively 15A), wherein the covering layer has a distal end part that protrudes (420 protruding past end of 405, alternatively 225 considered part of 230 which protrudes) by a required length for cutting a peripheral edge part of the light (such functionality considered met by the device of Griffin, see Figs. 19A and 19B, and 15A alternatively), in a direction in which the light is emitted (see Figs. 19A and 19B, and 15A alternatively).
In regards to claim 2, as best understood, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A, 19B, and 15A, the optical transmission cable (405, see Fig. 19A, and considering alternative embodiment of 200, Fig. 15A) comprises a core and a cladding (Par. [0087-0089]) formed on an outer periphery of the core, and wherein the required length is calculated by the following Equation (1) : Y = (1/NA² - 1) 1/2 X d2 Equation (1) wherein Y is the required length, NA is an aperture coefficient of the optical transmission cable, and d2 is a thickness of the cladding (as the cable of Griffin includes a core, cladding, and covering layer protruding a length past the cable, this formula is considered to be met, noting none of the formulaic variables or constants are currently defined.
In regards to claim 3, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A, 19B, and 15A, the optical transmission cable (405, see Fig. 19A, and considering alternative embodiment of 200, Fig. 15A) comprises a core (400 μm core, Par. [0089]) and a cladding formed on an outer periphery of the core (1.1 CCDR fiber, Par. [0089]), wherein the cladding has a thickness of 1/10 or less of an outer diameter of the core (1.1 CCDR fiber, Par. [0089]), and wherein the covering layer (230 with 225) has a thickness greater than that of the cladding (0.9 mm bore cap 225 having an outer diameter of 1.6 mm, Par. [0089]).
In regards to claim 4, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, the emission surface of the optical transmission cable (425) is inclined (substantially 90 degrees, vertically as oriented in Fig. 19B) with respect to the axial direction of the optical transmission cable (horizontal as oriented in Fig. 19B).
In regards to claim 5, Griffin discloses in Figure 15A, the covering layer (230, see Fig. 15A) has a refractive index (nylon, Par. [0089], such having a known refractive index of 1.53) equal to or greater than a refractive index of a covering material of the optical transmission cable (cladding, polymer (e.g. nylon), Par. [0095], such having a known refractive index of 1.53).
In regards to claim 6, Griffin discloses in Figure 15A, the covering layer has a refractive index of 1.53 or more (nylon, Par. [0089], such having a known refractive index of 1.53).
In regards to claim 7, as best understood, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, a reflective member (400) having a refractive surface (430 or 440) that refracts the light emitted from the emission surface (see Fig. 19B); and a tubular member (420) made of resin (Par. [0090, 0100]) into which the optical transmission cable (405) and the solid rod-shaped member (400) are inserted (see Figs. 19A and 19B), wherein the refractive surface (430 or 440) is disposed at a predetermined distance from the emission surface in the tubular member (see Fig. 19B) and is inclined with respect to an axial direction of the optical transmission cable (see Fig. 19B), and the light emitted from the emission surface is emitted in a direction that is inclined at a predetermined angle or more with respect to the axial direction of the optical transmission cable (see Fig. 19B).
In regards to claim 8, as best understood, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, the reflective member (400) is a rod-shaped member made of quartz or silicon (Par. [0090, 0100]) and is spaced apart from the optical transmission cable in the tubular member (see Fig. 19B), and wherein the refractive surface (430 or 440) is formed on an end part of the rod-shaped member on a side adjacent to the optical transmission cable (430 specifically, see Fig. 19B).
In regards to claim 9, as best understood, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A, 19B, and 21C, the refractive surface (430 or 440) comprises a vapor-deposited metal (as best understood, the metal comprised by the refractive surface is of a sleeve (545) which may be made of metal (see 545, Fig. 21C, Par. [0114], further noting Regarding the metal being “vapor-deposited”, the applicant is advised that, even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964, (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the cited limitations failed to distinguish the claimed structure from that of Griffin. See MPEP § 2113).
In regards to claim 10, as best understood, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, the optical transmission cable (405) is a plastic fiber comprising a core (201) having an outer diameter of 500 µm or more (Par. [0087-0089, 0095]) and a cladding made of resin and formed on an outer periphery of the core (Par. [0095]), and wherein an outer diameter of the refractive surface viewed from the axial direction of the optical transmission cable is larger than the outer diameter of the core (see Fig. 19B).
In regards to claim 11, as best understood, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, an unevenness of the refractive surface on which the light is incident (430) is equal to or less than a wavelength of the light generated from the light source (as such a surface is not suggested of having any "unevenness", it is interpreted as meeting this limitation).
In regards to claim 12, as best understood, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, the refractive surface (430) is formed in a curved surface shape that is concave with respect to the emission surface (Par. [0091]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please review the cited references found on the attached PTO-892, namely Watanabe et al. (US 2021/0186612), Li et al. (US 2009/0323076), Shimizu et al. (US 2021/0259771), Yoshihara et al. (US 5,836,941), and Daikuzono (US 5,496,307), which teach either alone or in combination lighting devices including optical transmission cable, reflective member having a refractive surface (as best understood), and tubular member, structurally and materially similar to that which is currently claimed above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER K GARLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3599. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-5:00 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, Jong-Suk (James) Lee can be reached at (571) 272-7044. 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.
/ALEXANDER K GARLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2875
Prosecution Insights