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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 4/8/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, and 5 have been amended. Claims 1-8 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
In consideration of the amendments to claims along with the Remarks dated 4/8/2026 and Supplemental Remarks as presented in interview dated 4/27/2026 as attached (19200692_A), all previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C 112(pre-AIA ), second paragraph, have been withdrawn.
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 1-5 and 7-8 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.
It is generally unclear how a reflective member can have a refractive surface. While Applicant has removed the limitation “reflective member” from the claims, according to the disclosure, the solid “rod-shaped member” is a “reflective member” (Par. [0006, 0007, 0019, 0035, 0045, and 0046]). According to applicants Remarks, the light “enters the bulk of the rod-shaped member 30 while being refracted, and exits toward the outside of the tubular member 20 with a direction different from the optical axis X”. The disclosure, including the Figures, do not illustrate any light entering the bulk of the rod-shaped member. Further unclear per claim 3 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.
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 1-2 and 4-8 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 and 19B, 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); a refractive surface (430 or 440) that refracts the light emitted from the emission surface (see Fig. 19B), the refractive surface (430 or 440) being formed on an end surface of a solid rod-shaped member (400) comprising a transparent solid material (see Fig. 19B, Par. [0090, 0107]); 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 there is a space that is a medium having a refractive index different from that of the solid rod-shaped member (see Fig. 19B), between the emission surface and the refractive surface (see Fig. 19B), wherein the light emitted from the emission surface enters the space (see Fig. 19B), the light having a divergence angle based on a numerical aperture of the optical transmission cable (see Fig. 19B). wherein the light passes through the refractive surface and is refracted (see Fig. 19B), thereby changing its direction (see Fig. 19B), and wherein the refractive surface is disposed at a predetermined distance from the emission surface (see Fig. 19B) 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 refracts the light emitted from the emission surface at a predetermined angle or more with respect to the axial direction of the optical transmission cable (see Fig. 19B).
In regards to claim 2, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, the solid rod-shaped 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 4, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, the optical transmission cable 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 5, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, an unevenness of the refractive surface on which the light is incident (430) has a peak-to-valley (P-V) value of λ or less with respect to a central wavelength of laser 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 6, 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 7, Griffin discloses in Figures 19A and 19B, the emission surface (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) so as to face the refractive surface substantially in parallel (425 and 430 substantially parallel at least at centers of each, see Fig. 19B).
In regards to claim 8, 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, now including Pitris et al. (US 6,564,087), Griffin (US 9,618,700), Black et al. (US 5,163,935), Hmelar et al. (US 5,772,657), which teaches either alone or in combination optical transmission cable, reflective member having a refractive surface, and tubular member, structurally and materially similar to that which is currently claimed above.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Jessica Han can be reached at 571-272-2078. 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 2896
Prosecution Insights