Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/635,207

TREATMENT SUPPORT APPARATUS AND IMAGE GENERATION METHOD

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Feb 14, 2022
Examiner
LUONG, PETER
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Shimadzu Corporation
OA Round
5 (Non-Final)
69%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 10m
To Grant
96%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 69% — above average
69%
Career Allow Rate
501 granted / 727 resolved
-1.1% vs TC avg
Strong +27% interview lift
Without
With
+26.9%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 10m
Avg Prosecution
29 currently pending
Career history
756
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
7.4%
-32.6% vs TC avg
§103
38.9%
-1.1% vs TC avg
§102
22.9%
-17.1% vs TC avg
§112
22.3%
-17.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 727 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2026 has been entered. 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. Claim(s) 1-6 and 8-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 6,214,033) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2012/0010558) and Bukesov et al. (US 2021/0044079) Li et al. discloses a treatment support apparatus (Figs. 2 and 4-5) comprising: an excitation light source (21; 31; 51a; 51b) configured to irradiate a fluorescent substance of a drug (6) administered into a body of a subject (5) with excitation light in a specific waveband, which is pulsed radiated with the irradiation time (col. 1, lines 52-62) having energy that excites the fluorescent substance but does not kill a cancer cell before or after treatment to kill the cancer cell based on irradiating the drug containing the fluorescent substance with light in a specific waveband (col. 1, lines 23-40; col. 2, lines 28-39); a storage configured to store an irradiation time and an irradiation intensity of the excitation light corresponding to the drug (55; col. 16, lines 56-63); a controller configured to retrieve the irradiation time and the irradiation intensity stored in the storage (7; col. 6, lines 47-54; col. 10, lines 19-24), and control the excitation light source to irradiate the drug with the excitation light with the irradiation time and the irradiation intensity retrieved from the storage (7; col. 6, lines 47-54; col. 10, lines 19-24); a fluorescent detector (25; 35; 37; 38) configured to detect fluorescence emitted by the fluorescent substance of the drug due to excitation by the excitation light (col. 2, lines 7-27; col. 7, lines 13-15); and an image generator (26; 35; 36) configured to generate a fluorescence distribution image, which is an image showing a distribution state of the fluorescence emitted by the fluorescent substance, based on the fluorescence from the fluorescent substance detected by the fluorescence detector (col. 2, lines 7-27; col. 8, lines 4-19). The Examiner’s position is that the claims recite the apparatus and the limitations of excitation of the particular drug or substance (e.g. IRDye 700DX) is considered intended use. However, Kobayashi et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor using IRDye 700DX ([0069]; [0156]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Li et al. with IRDye 700DX as taught by Kobayashi et al. as it is a well-known substance for fluorescence imaging of cancer cells. Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for an operation unit configured to receive an operation of a user. However, Bukosov et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor an operation unit wherein the user may control activation of the pulse via an actuator ([0186]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Li et al. with user controlled actuator as taught by Bukosov et al. in order for the user to control activation of the pulse. With respect to claims 2-5, Li et al. discloses controlling the integrated energy (col. 17, line 66 to col. 18, line 32). With respect to claims 6 and 8-9, Li et al. discloses controlling a limit to an irradiation intensity, an irradiation time, and a number of times of irradiation of the excitation light (col. 18, lines 23-32 and 39-57). With respect to claim 10, Li et al. discloses a treatment support apparatus (Figs. 2 and 4-5) comprising: an excitation light source (21; 31; 51a; 51b) configured to irradiate a fluorescent substance of a drug (6) administered into a body of a subject (5) with excitation light in a specific waveband having energy that excites the fluorescent substance but does not kill a cancer cell before or after treatment to kill the cancer cell based on irradiating the drug containing the fluorescent substance with light in a specific waveband (col. 1, lines 23-40; col. 2, lines 28-39); a fluorescent detector (25; 35; 37; 38) configured to detect fluorescence emitted by the fluorescent substance of the drug due to excitation by the excitation light (col. 2, lines 7-27; col. 7, lines 13-15); and a distribution information output generator (26; 35; 36) configured to output information about a distribution of the fluorescence distribution emitted by the fluorescent substance, based on the fluorescence from the fluorescent substance detected by the fluorescence detector (col. 2, lines 7-27; col. 8, lines 4-19). The Examiner’s position is that the claims recite the apparatus and the limitations of excitation of the particular drug or substance (e.g. IRDye 700DX) is considered intended use. However, Kobayashi et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor using IRDye 700DX ([0069]; [0156]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Li et al. with IRDye 700DX as taught by Kobayashi et al. as it is a well-known substance for fluorescence imaging of cancer cells. Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for an operation unit configured to receive an operation of a user. However, Bukosov et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor an operation unit wherein the user may control activation of the pulse via an actuator ([0186]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Li et al. with user controlled actuator as taught by Bukosov et al. in order for the user to control activation of the pulse. Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for a single pulse. However, Perelman et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor single pulse excitation is used in order to avoid motion artifacts (col. 11, lines 2-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Li et al. with single pulse excitation as taught by Perelman et al. in order to reduce motion artifacts. With respect to claim 11, Li et al. discloses an image generation method comprising: irradiating a fluorescent substance of a drug (6) administered into a body of a subject (5) with excitation light in a specific waveband having energy that excites the fluorescent substance but does not kill a cancer cell before or after treatment to kill the cancer cell based on irradiating the drug containing the fluorescent substance with light in a specific waveband (col. 1, lines 23-40; col. 2, lines 28-39); storing an irradiation time and an irradiation intensity of the excitation light corresponding to the drug (55; col. 16, lines 56-63); retrieving the irradiation time and the irradiation intensity stored (7; col. 6, lines 47-54; col. 10, lines 19-24); controlling the excitation light source to irradiate the drug with the excitation light with the irradiation time and the irradiation intensity retrieved (7; col. 6, lines 47-54; col. 10, lines 19-24);detecting fluorescence emitted by the fluorescent substance of the drug due to excitation by the excitation light (col. 2, lines 7-27; col. 7, lines 13-15); and generating a fluorescence distribution image, which is an image showing a distribution state of the fluorescence emitted by the fluorescent substance, based on the fluorescence from the fluorescent substance detected by the fluorescence detector (col. 2, lines 7-27; col. 8, lines 4-19). Li et al. does not teach IRDye 700 DX and an antibody. However, Kobayashi et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor using IRDye 700DX and an antibody ([0069]; [0156]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Li et al. with IRDye 700DX and an antibody as taught by Kobayashi et al. as it is a well-known substance for fluorescence imaging of cancer cells. Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for an operation unit configured to receive an operation of a user. However, Bukosov et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor an operation unit wherein the user may control activation of the pulse via an actuator ([0186]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Li et al. with user controlled actuator as taught by Bukosov et al. in order for the user to control activation of the pulse. Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for a single pulse. However, Perelman et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor single pulse excitation is used in order to avoid motion artifacts (col. 11, lines 2-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Li et al. with single pulse excitation as taught by Perelman et al. in order to reduce motion artifacts. With respect to claim 12, Li et al. discloses controlling the integrated energy (col. 17, line 66 to col. 18, line 32). Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (US 6,214,033) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 2012/0010558), Bukesov et al. (US 2021/0044079), and Perelman et al. (US 6,922,583) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Wu et al. (US 2013/0053699). Li et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for further comprising a visible light detector and an image synthesizer configured to generate a composite image. However, Wu et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor comprising detecting white light image and synthesizing a composite image to superimpose the white light image and the fluorescent image ([0017]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Li et al. with the composite image as taught by Wu et al. as superimposing white light and fluorescent images are well known in the art. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the reference does not teach excitation light which is pulsed radiated with the irradiation time. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Li et al. discloses pulsed light sources (31; 32; col. 1, lines 52-65). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6. 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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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. /PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Feb 14, 2022
Application Filed
Feb 23, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §103
May 29, 2024
Response Filed
Sep 03, 2024
Final Rejection — §103
Mar 06, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 07, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Aug 18, 2025
Response Filed
Dec 13, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Feb 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 12, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Mar 25, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Mar 26, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12602772
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RAPID NEURAL NETWORK-BASED IMAGE SEGMENTATION AND RADIOPHARMACEUTICAL UPTAKE DETERMINATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599368
INFORMATION PROCESSING APPARATUS, INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, AND PROGRAM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12582383
ULTRASOUND IMAGE PROCESSING METHOD, AND ULTRASOUND APPARATUS USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12551124
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR MEASURING CAPILLARY REFILL TIME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 2026
Patent 12544153
INDWELLING-TYPE MEDICAL DEVICE AND ENDOSCOPE SYSTEM USING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
69%
Grant Probability
96%
With Interview (+26.9%)
3y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 727 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month