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 .
Status of Claims
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 17-19 are cancelled.
Claims 21-22 are added as a new claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-12, filed 10/21/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of
claim(s) 1-16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia.
Regarding claim 1, applicant argues that modifying the composition of the blue phosphor from
Hirosaki would render the invention inoperable for its intended purpose. Therefore, the modification would not be obvious. After further search and consideration, the examiner will rely on Yamashita, as the new primary art, to teach this limitation of claim 1 (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 55, 80, 89-90, 107, 154, 169, and 207). Two phosphors, CASN (16) and green (17), are disclosed to convert a primary light (blue light) into two different wavelengths. A wavelength range of 630-780 nm is disclosed for the CASN phosphor and a wavelength range of 500-550 nm is disclosed for the green phosphor.
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 1-6, 9-16, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
YAMASHITA et al. US Pub.: US 20160276549 A1, hereinafter Yamashita in view of DACOSTA et al. US Pub.: US 20170236281 A1, hereinafter Dacosta in view of Jia et al. US Pub.: US 20190256769 A1, hereinafter Jia.
Regarding claims 1, 11-12, and 15, Yamashita teaches a system comprising: a light emitting device, wherein the light emitting device comprises: a light source configured to emit a primary light (blue light) (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 56-58, 74-75, 80, 147, 152, 172, 174, and 188);
a first phosphor (16) that absorbs the primary light and converts the primary light (blue light) into a first wavelength-converted light having a wavelength longer than that of the primary light (blue light) (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 56-58, 75-76, 98, 107, 129, 140, and 147);
and a second phosphor (17) that absorbs the primary light and converts the primary light (blue light) into a second wavelength-converted light having a wavelength longer than that of the primary light (blue light) (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 55, 80, 89-90, 107, 154, 169, and 207);
wherein the first wavelength-converted light is a fluorescence having a light component over an entire wavelength range of 700 nm or more to 800 nm or less (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 55 and 74); A wavelength range of 630-780 nm is disclosed.
the second wavelength-converted light is a fluorescence having a peak where a fluorescence intensity shows a maximum value in a wavelength range of 380 nm or more to less than 700 nm (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 80); A wavelength range of 500-550 nm is disclosed.
and the first wavelength-converted light has a 1/10 afterglow time longer than that of the second wavelength-converted light (paragraph 17); The CASN phosphor 16 has a time (also referred to as afterglow time) of approximately 10 ms which is the time taken for the light intensity to become 1/e (e is a natural logarithm base). It is also known that has a significantly longer afterglow time than green phosphor.
and a fluorescence spectrum of the first wavelength-converted light has a peak where a fluorescence intensity shows a maximum value in a wavelength range exceeding 720 nm (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 55 and 74); A wavelength range of 630-780 nm is disclosed.
However, Yamashita does not teach the light emitting device emits the first wavelength-converted light and the second wavelength-converted light alternately in time such that a fluorescence emitted from an irradiated object excited by the first wavelength-converted light and having a longer wavelength than the first wavelength-converted light is detected by a near-infrared light image sensor while an intensity of the second wavelength-converted light is smaller than with respect to an intensity of the first wavelength-converted light after the primary light is no longer emitted by the light source; and the first phosphor is activated with Cr3+;
Dacosta, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a near-infrared light image sensor and the light emitting device emits the first wavelength-converted light and the second wavelength-converted light alternately in time such that a fluorescence emitted from an irradiated object excited by the first wavelength-converted light and having a longer wavelength than the first wavelength-converted light is detected by a near-infrared light image sensor while an intensity of the second wavelength-converted light is smaller than with respect to an intensity of the first wavelength-converted light after the primary light is no longer emitted by the light source (paragraph 47, 62, 29, 80, and 82-84). “The CCD image sensor is sensitive across ultraviolet (<400 nm), visible (400 to 700 nm), and near-infrared (700 to 900 nm) wavelengths to AF of tissues and bacteria.” Therefore, the light emission device is emitting shorter and longer converted wavelengths, and is detected by a near-infrared light image sensor. The CCD image sensor is used to detect different wavelengths and intensities. “The light emitting device may switch between light imaging and fluorescent imaging” from a user switch. Therefore, the first and second wavelength may be emitted alternately in time.
Therefore, 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 device of Yamashita to add the near-infrared image sensor and toggle switching from Dacosta for the benefit of providing a physician with the appropriate information regarding how excitation/illumination light interacts with the normal and diseased tissues and may cause an optical signal (e.g., absorption, fluorescence and/or reflectance) to be generated within the tissue.
Jia, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the first phosphor is activated with Cr3+ (paragraph 69-72).
Therefore, 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 first CASN phosphor of Yamashita to incorporate trivalent chromium from Jia for the benefit of reducing toxicity during light emission procedure to a patient’s tissue.
Regarding claim 2, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention and
Yamashita further teaches wherein the first wavelength-converted light and the second wavelength-converted light have a 1/10 afterglow time difference exceeding 50 ps (paragraph 17); The CASN phosphor 16 has a time (also referred to as afterglow time) of approximately 10 ms which is the time taken for the light intensity to become 1/e (e is a natural logarithm base). It is also known that has a significantly longer afterglow time than green phosphor.
Regarding claim 3, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention, but
does not teach wherein the primary light is a laser light, as modified.
Dacosta further teaches wherein the primary light is a laser light (paragraph 62, 69, and 111).
Excitation/illumination light may be produced by sources including, but not limited to, individual or multiple light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in any arrangement including in ring or array formats, wavelength-filtered light bulbs, or lasers. Laser diodes may be used for an example. Furthermore, the device may have two light sources, such as low power laser beam.
Therefore, 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 light source of Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia to add another laser light source or laser diode from Dacosta for the benefit of permitting the clinical operator to easily visualize the laser targeting spots on the skin surface and to easily tune light intensity while imaging for greater therapeutic efficacy.
Regarding claim 4, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention and
Yamashita further teaches wherein the primary light (blue light) is a continuous pulsed light (paragraph 93, 182, and 186).
Regarding claim 5, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention and
Yamashita further teaches wherein an extinction time of the continuous pulsed light is longer than the 1/10 afterglow time of the second wavelength-converted light (paragraph 17); The CASN phosphor 16 has a time (also referred to as afterglow time) of approximately 10 ms which is the time taken for the light intensity to become 1/e (e is a natural logarithm base). It is also known that has a significantly longer afterglow time than green phosphor.
Furthermore, given that afterglow time of phosphor-associated wavelength-converted light is specified as being as short as a duration of microseconds, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as of the filing date of Applicant’s invention to engage in routine experimentation to discover the optimal relative duration of illumination decay times based on desired application results. See MPEP § 2144.05(II)(A)( “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation”) (citing In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)).
Regarding claim 6, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention and
Yamashita further teaches wherein the first phosphor (16) is activated with a transition metal ion (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 56-58, 75-76, 98, 107, 129, 140, and 147). CASN phosphor contain transition metals as part of their composition (Calcium Aluminum Silicon Nitride).
Regarding claim 9, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention and
Yamashita further teaches wherein the light emitting device is a light source for a sensing system, or an illumination system for a sensing system (fig. 1; paragraph 41-42). The illuminating device is disclosed.
Regarding claim 10, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention,
but does not teach wherein the light emitting device is used in either a fluorescence imaging method or a photodynamic therapy, as applied.
Dacosta, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the light emitting device is used in
either a fluorescence imaging method or a photodynamic therapy (paragraph 102-105).
Therefore, 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 system method of using from Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia to also incorporate the method of fluorescence imaging method or a photodynamic therapy from Dacosta for the benefit of providing dynamic monitoring and treating diseased cells on a patient’s body.
Regarding claim 13, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention,
but does not teach wherein the electronic apparatus is any one of an information recognition device, a sorting device, a detection device, or an inspection device.
Dacosta, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the electronic apparatus is any one of
an information recognition device, a sorting device, a detection device, or an inspection device (paragraph 102-105). The device is an inspection device used for monitoring and killing infected tissue on the body.
Therefore, 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 system method of using from Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia to also incorporate the method of fluorescence imaging method or a photodynamic therapy from Dacosta for the benefit of providing dynamic monitoring and treating diseased cells on a patient’s body.
Regarding claim 14, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention,
but does not teach wherein the inspection device is any one of a medical inspection device, an agricultural and livestock inspection device, a fishery inspection device, or an industrial inspection device.
Dacosta, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the inspection device is any one of a
medical inspection device, an agricultural and livestock inspection device, a fishery inspection device, or an industrial inspection device (paragraph 102-105). The device is an inspection device used for monitoring and killing infected tissue on the body.
Therefore, 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 system method of using from Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia to also incorporate the method of fluorescence imaging method or a photodynamic therapy from Dacosta for the benefit of providing dynamic monitoring and treating diseased cells on a patient’s body.
Regarding claim 16, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention
and Yamashita further teaches wherein the primary light (blue light) is a continuous pulsed light that turns on and off repeatedly (paragraph 93, 182, and 186).
Regarding claim 20, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention
and Yamashita further teaches but does not explicitly teach wherein the irradiated object is a fluorescent drug as modified.
Dacosta further teaches wherein the irradiated object is a fluorescent drug (paragraph 161). It is disclosed that “pre-assigned color maps may be used to display simultaneously the biological components of the wound and surrounding normal tissues including fluorescently labeled drugs/pharmacological agents.”
Therefore 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 system from Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia to apply a fluorescent drug from Dacosta for the benefit of improving visualization in real-time or near real-time (e.g., less than 1 minute) of the health, healing and infectious status of the wound area.
Regarding claim 21, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention
and Yamashita further teaches wherein the first wavelength converted light has a light component over the entire wavelength range of 750 nm or more to 800 nm or less (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 55 and 74); A wavelength range of 630-780 nm is disclosed.
Regarding claim 22, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention
and Yamashita further teaches wherein a spectrum of a primary light (blue light) emitted by the light source has a peak where the intensity shows a maximum value in a range of 430 nm or more to less than 500 nm (fig. 1 and 14; paragraph 172). Light (primary light) which is emitted from the LED chips 43 and 44 is blue light in a range from 430 nm to 480 nm, and a blue LED chip having a peak wavelength near 450 nm.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASHITA et al. US Pub.:
US 20160276549 A1, hereinafter Yamashita in view of DACOSTA et al. US Pub.: US 20170236281 A1, hereinafter Dacosta in view of Jia et al. US Pub.: US 20190256769 A1, hereinafter Jia in view of TAKEHARA et al. US Pub.: US 20170213942 A1, hereinafter Takehara.
Regarding claim 7, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention, but
does not teach wherein the second phosphor is activated with at least one of Ce3+ or Eu2+.
Takehara, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second phosphor is activated with at least one of Ce3+ or Eu2+ (paragraph 26). A cerium-activated zinc sulfide-based phosphor and a europium-activated alkaline earth aluminate-based phosphor can be used as the green phosphorescent phosphor 2.
Therefore, 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 green phosphor of Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia with the green phosphor activated by cerium or europium from Takehara for the benefit of providing higher efficiency and durability during light emission.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over YAMASHITA et al. US Pub.:
US 20160276549 A1, hereinafter Yamashita in view of DACOSTA et al. US Pub.: US 20170236281 A1, hereinafter Dacosta in view of Jia et al. US Pub.: US 20190256769 A1, hereinafter Jia in view of Kasugai et al. US Pub.: US 20150226389 A1, hereinafter Kasugai.
Regarding claim 8, Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia teaches the claimed invention, but
does not explicitly teach wherein the second wavelength-converted light has a correlated color temperature of 2500 K or more and less than 7000 K.
Kasugai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second wavelength-converted light has a correlated color temperature of 2500 K or more and less than 7000 K (paragraph 125). A color temperature of 6000K is disclosed.
Therefore, 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 temperature of converted light of Yamashita in view of Dacosta in view of Jia with the temperature from Kaugai for the benefit of allowing for more precisely tailored light output, and greater therapeutic efficacy.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner
should be directed to THIEN J TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-0486. The examiner can normally be reached M-F. 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, Benjamin Klein can be reached at 571-270-5213. 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.
/T.J.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/MALLIKA D FAIRCHILD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792