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 § 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, 4-6, and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2013/0123642 Yamaguchi et al., hereinafter “Yamaguchi”, in view of US 2017/0032521 Kubo et al., hereinafter “Kubo” (both cited previously).
Regarding claim 1, Yamaguchi discloses a treatment support device (Abstract and Figure 1, element 1) configured to control therapeutic light emitted toward a treatment site of a subject (Para 9-14 and Figure 3, element 110 and 300) to whom a therapeutic agent containing a fluorescent dye used in photoimmunotherapy has been administered (Abstract and Para 9-14) and excite the fluorescent dye by means of the therapeutic light to perform treatment (Para 9-14), the treatment support device comprising: a light source configured to emit the therapeutic light (Figure 3, elements 110 and 300); a control unit configured to control an irradiation of the therapeutic light (Figure 3, element 150, Para 27, 120, 157, 198, and 232); a detection unit configured to detect intensity of fluorescence generated from the fluorescent dye (Figure 3, element 130 and Para 142), when the therapeutic light is being emitted (Para 142); and a storage unit (Figure 3, element 160) configured to sequentially store the intensity of the fluorescence (Para 123 and 158), wherein the control unit is configured to calculate an amount of change in the intensity of the fluorescence during predetermined time interval based on the intensity of the fluorescence stored in the storage unit (Para 158; Examiner believes this paragraph shows this exact limitation “The controller 150 starts to record, in the storage 160, the temporal change of the fluorescence intensity as a log in which the calculated fluorescence intensity is in relation with time information obtained from a timing measurement unit”, see also Figure 11), and to stop irradiation of the therapeutic light in response to the amount of change in the intensity of the fluorescence during the predetermined time interval becoming equal to or less than a predetermined threshold (Para 120, 232, and 252; see also Para 213, 217, and 249 that show a prompt to stop irradiation based on phase difference and fluorescence intensity, Examiner agrees that Yamaguchi does not disclose an automatic stopping, instead it prompts a user, however, Kubo makes up for that limitation as seen below).
Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose wherein the control unit is configured to stop irradiation of the therapeutic light.
However, Kubo discloses a treatment device/method that emits light towards a tissue of a subject that was administered with fluorescent dye (Abstract) and teaches the control unit is configured to stop irradiation of the therapeutic light (Para 138; This is only relied upon to disclose automatic stopping of light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed automatic stopping of the light as taught by Kubo, in the invention of Yamaguchi, in order to shut off the application of light in response to preset variables (Kubo; Para 138).
Regarding claim 4, Yamaguchi discloses an imaging unit (Para 115).
Yamaguchi does not disclose acquire a fluorescence image by imaging the fluorescence generated from the fluorescent dye, when the therapeutic light is being emitted, wherein the detection unit detects the intensity of the fluorescence based on a luminance value of the fluorescence image.
However, Kubo discloses a treatment device/method that emits light towards a tissue of a subject that was administered with fluorescent dye (Abstract) and teaches acquire a fluorescence image by imaging the fluorescence generated from the fluorescent dye (Abstract), when the therapeutic light is being emitted (Abstract), wherein the detection unit detects the intensity of the fluorescence based on a luminance value of the fluorescence image (Abstract and Para 152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a luminance value as taught by Kubo, in the invention of Yamaguchi, in order to determine the fluorescence intensity (Kubo; Para 152).
Regarding claim 5, Yamaguchi discloses the therapeutic light is light having a wavelength of 600 nm to 750 nm (Para 108).
Regarding claim 6, Yamaguchi discloses a therapeutic light control method (Abstract, Para 1, and Figure 1, element 1) configured to control therapeutic light emitted toward a treatment site of a subject (Para 9-14 and Figure 3, element 110 and 300) to whom a therapeutic agent containing a fluorescent dye used in photoimmunotherapy has been administered (Abstract and Para 9-14) and excite the fluorescent dye the therapeutic light to perform treatment (Para 9-14), the therapeutic light control method comprising the steps of: emitting the therapeutic light by a light source (Para 33 and Figure 3, elements 110 and 300); controlling an irradiation of the therapeutic light by a control unit (Figure 3, element 150, Para 27, 120, 157, 198, and 232); detecting intensity of fluorescence generated from the fluorescent dye by a detection unit (Figure 3, element 130 and Para 142); and sequentially storing the intensity of the fluorescence in a storage unit (Figure 3, element 160 and Para 123 and 158), wherein the step of controlling the irradiation of the therapeutic light includes calculating an amount of change in the intensity of the fluorescence during predetermined time interval based on the stored intensity of the fluorescence by the control unit (Para 158; Examiner believes this paragraph shows this exact limitation “The controller 150 starts to record, in the storage 160, the temporal change of the fluorescence intensity as a log in which the calculated fluorescence intensity is in relation with time information obtained from a timing measurement unit”, see also Figure 11), and stopping irradiation of the therapeutic light in response to the amount of change in the intensity of the fluorescence during the predetermined time interval becoming equal to or less than a predetermined threshold by the control unit (Para 120, 232, and 252; see also Para 213, 217, and 249 that show a prompt to stop irradiation based on phase difference and fluorescence intensity, Examiner agrees that Yamaguchi does not disclose an automatic stopping, instead it prompts a user, however, Kubo makes up for that limitation as seen below).
Yamaguchi does not explicitly disclose stopping irradiation of the therapeutic light by the control unit.
However, Kubo discloses a treatment device/method that emits light towards a tissue of a subject that was administered with fluorescent dye (Abstract) and teaches stopping irradiation of the therapeutic light by the control unit (Para 138; This is only relied upon to disclose automatic stopping of light)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed automatic stopping of the light as taught by Kubo, in the invention of Yamaguchi, in order to shut off the application of light in response to preset variables (Kubo; Para 138).
Regarding claim 9, Yamaguchi discloses all the limitations of claim 6.
Yamaguchi does not disclose the step of acquiring a fluorescence image by imaging the fluorescence generated from the fluorescent dye by an imaging unit, when the therapeutic light is being emitted, wherein the step of detecting the intensity of the fluorescence, the intensity of the fluorescence is detected based on a luminance value of the fluorescence image by the imaging unit.
However, Kubo discloses a treatment device/method that emits light towards a tissue of a subject that was administered with fluorescent dye (Abstract) and teaches the step of acquiring a fluorescence image by imaging the fluorescence generated from the fluorescent dye by an imaging unit (Abstract and Para 37), when the therapeutic light is being emitted (Abstract), wherein the step of detecting the intensity of the fluorescence, the intensity of the fluorescence is detected based on a luminance value of the fluorescence image by the imaging unit (Abstract and Para 152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a luminance value as taught by Kubo, in the invention of Yamaguchi, in order to determine the fluorescence intensity (Kubo; Para 152).
Regarding claim 10, Yamaguchi discloses the therapeutic light is light having a wavelength of 600 nm to 750 nm (Para 108).
Regarding claim 11, Yamaguchi discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Yamaguchi does not disclose the luminance value is one of a mean luminance value of the fluorescence image and a maximum luminance value of the fluorescence image.
However, Kubo teaches the luminance value is one of a mean luminance value of the fluorescence image and a maximum luminance value of the fluorescence image (Para 90, 113, and 155; mean luminance value is disclosed; see also Abstract and Para 152).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have disclosed a luminance value as taught by Kubo, in the invention of Yamaguchi, in order to determine the fluorescence intensity (Kubo; Para 152).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection.
Refer to rejection above for arguments.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYA ZIAD BAKKAR whose telephone number is (313)446-6659. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30 am - 5:00 pm M-Th.
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, Carl Layno can be reached on (571) 272-4949. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYA ZIAD BAKKAR/
Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796