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
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 7 November 2025.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7 November 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7, 9, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naganuma et al. (US PGPUB 20070197886; hereinafter "Naganuma") and in further view of Kruger (US PGPUB 20160192843).
With regards to Claim 1, Naganuma discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a platen (acoustic coupler 512; see Naganuma FIG. 10 & ¶ [0846-0853]);
a light source system (first and/or second light sources 501/505; see Naganuma FIG. 10) configured to provide light to a target object on an outer surface of the platen (FIG. 10 clearly illustrates that that incident light from the coupler 509 directs the light through the acoustic coupler 512 to the top surface upon which the finger is situated), wherein the light source system is configured to direct the light along a first axis oriented at a first angle relative to the outer surface of the platen (see Naganuma FIG. 10, the arrow from coupler 509 also represents the first axis along which light is directed to the outer surface of the acoustic coupler 512 {i.e. platen}); and
an ultrasonic receiver system configured to receive ultrasonic waves generated by the target object responsive to the light from the light source system (see ultrasonic detector 513 in Naganuma FIG. 10 & ¶ [0846]; see also ¶ [0705] for description of ultrasonic detector 513 and conversion of photoacoustic signals into electrical signals for inspection), the ultrasonic receiver system including one or more receiver elements residing in a receiver plane, a normal to the receiver plane being oriented along a second axis at a second angle relative to the outer surface of the platen (FIG. 10 of Naganuma clearly illustrates the ultrasonic detector 513 and its corresponding axis perpendicular to its surface, it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an ultrasound detector includes a layer of transducer elements for detection), wherein a first platen portion residing between the light source system and the outer surface of the platen may have a first platen portion thickness, measured along a normal to the outer surface of the platen, that is greater than a second platen portion thickness, measured along a normal to the outer surface of the platen, of a second platen portion residing between at least one receiver element of the ultrasonic receiver system and the outer surface of the platen (FIG. 10 of Naganuma shows that the distance to the light source is shorter than the distance to the ultrasound detector. As in the first annotated, the first thickness is extrapolated as a radii to show that the second distance is in fact longer than the first distance as detailed above; under a broadest reasonable interpretation, one of ordinary skill in the art can interpret FIG. 10 of Naganuma as having a first platen thickness {i.e. solid line} less than the second platen thickness {i.e. dashed line}),
PNG
media_image1.png
463
498
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
915
1014
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It appears that Naganuma may be silent to the first platen portion thickness is less than the second platen portion thickness. However, Naganuma teaches in FIGS. 23-28 of the proximity of the light generation unit 11 {i.e. light source} being closer to the object than the ultrasonic detection unit 14 {i.e. receiver}. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Naganuma to provide at least the first platen portion thickness is less than the second platen portion thickness because doing so would amount to rearrangement of parts because Naganuma discloses various arrangement which establishes that the changing the distance between the Naganuma light generation unit 11 to object relative to the distance between the light generation unit 11 and the ultrasonic detection unit 14 would be a matter of obvious design choice.
Moreover, the instant specification fails to establish a criticality for the arrangement of the first platen portion thickness < the second platen portion thickness. More specifically, the instant specification fails to explicitly or inherently disclose the criticality of said arrangement in ¶ [0100] which describes the relationship of thickness t1 {first platen portion thickness} to T1 {second platen portion thickness}. Furthermore, the instant specification discloses the opposite arrangement in FIG. 5 where first platen portion thickness > the second platen portion thickness which would support the lack of criticality of the claimed arrangement.
While modified Naganuma teaches of a PZT and PVDF transducer (see Naganuma ¶ [1018]), it appears that Naganuma may be silent to wherein at least a portion of the ultrasonic receiver system includes a composite piezoelectric material and wherein the composite piezoelectric material comprises a 1-3 composite, a 2-2 composite or a 3-3 composite. However, Kruger teaches of a photoacoustic apparatus in which the transducer is a “1-3 piezo-composite transducers” for inspection of a finger, for example (see Kruger Abstract & ¶ [0041 & 0098]).
Modified Naganuma and Kruger are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of photoacoustic inspection of a finger. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Naganuma to incorporate the above teachings of Kruger to provide at least 1-3 composite transducer. Doing so would also amount to an obvious design choice because the instant specification fails to establish a criticality of the piezo-composite composition especially considering the instant specification contemplates all compositional variants (¶ [0182]).
With regards to Claim 21, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein the second angle is approximately 90 degrees (when the ultrasonic detector having a hole through which the incident light flux passes is used, the ultrasonic detector can be placed in the completely rearward direction of 180°, i.e. the incident surface of the ultrasonic detector 513 is parallel with the surface of acoustic coupler 215, thus, making the second axis 90°; see Naganuma ¶ [0850]).
With regards to Claim 41, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein at least a portion of the platen is configured to direct the ultrasonic waves generated by the target object along a third axis that is at a third angle relative to the outer surface of the platen (FIG. 10 of Naganuma clearly illustrates that the acoustic coupler 512 {i.e. platen} is configured to direct the acoustic waves from the subject 510 to the ultrasonic detector 513 along an axis therebetween).
With regards to Claim 54, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein the third axis is parallel, or substantially parallel, to the second axis (FIG. 10 of Naganuma clearly illustrates that the ultrasonic receiver 513 is oriented such that the incident photoacoustic signal is perpendicular to the surface of the ultrasonic detector 513, i.e. second and third angles substantially parallel).
With regards to Claim 71, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein the light source system includes one or more light-directing elements configured to direct light from the light source system towards the target object along the first axis (FIG. 10 of Naganuma illustrates first and/or second lens 502/506).
With regards to Claim 97, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein the one or more light-directing elements includes a lens (FIG. 10 of Naganuma illustrates first and/or second lens 502/506).
With regards to Claim 291, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein the light source system is configured to provide light to one or more arteries within a human finger (FIG. 10 of Naganuma clearly illustrates the finger as the test region 510 for testing blood constituents, e.g. glucose levels; see also Naganuma ¶ [0025]; it should be appreciated that in order to inspect the blood glucose levels, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that arteries and/or vessels therein are inspected).
With regards to Claim 301, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein the platen, the light source system, or a combination thereof, is configured for transmitting light in a range from 400 to 1000 nanometers (blood constituent concentration measuring apparatus having a wavelength of 0.8 μm, or 800 nm; see Naganuma ¶ [0808]).
With regards to Claim 311, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein the light source system is configured to provide pulses of light having pulse widths in a range from 50 to 500 nanoseconds (FIG. 4 of Naganuma illustrates a pulse width of 0.5 μs, or 500 nanoseconds).
With regards to Claim 321, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein at least a portion of the ultrasonic receiver system includes a composite piezoelectric material (The ultrasonic detection unit including crystal such as PZT and PVDF {i.e. composite piezoelectric materials} can be cited as an example of the ultrasonic detection unit in which piezoelectric effect is utilized; see Naganuma ¶ [1018]).
Claims 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Naganuma in view of Kruger, as applied to Claim 1, and in further view of Schmid (US PGPUB 20170108429).
With regards to Claim 411, while modified Naganuma teaches of all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, it appears that modified Naganuma may be silent to further comprising one or more anti-reflective layers. However, Schmid teaches of an optoacoustic probe for imaging blood constituents (see Schmid ¶ [Abstract & 0055]). In particular, Schmid teaches of further comprising one or more anti-reflective layers (optical window {i.e. platen} with an anti-reflective coating; see Schmid ¶ [0093]; wherein the anti-reflective coating is used to reduce and/or minimize energy absorbed or reflected by the optical window 203).
Modified Naganuma and Schmid are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of optoacoustic imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Naganuma to incorporate the above teachings of Schmid to provide at least an anti-reflective coating. Doing so would aid in reducing and/or minimizing energy absorbed or reflected by the optical window 203 (Schmid ¶ [0093]).
With regards to Claim 4241, modified Naganuma teaches of wherein at least one of the one or more anti-reflective layers resides proximate the outer surface of the platen (optical window {i.e. platen} with an anti-reflective coating; see Schmid ¶ [0093]; wherein the anti-reflective coating is used to reduce and/or minimize energy absorbed or reflected by the optical window 203, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the anti-reflective coating would be on the outer surface of the optical window to improve pass-through).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 13 June 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in further view of Kruger.
In particular, Applicant contends that Naganuma is silent wherein at least a portion of the ultrasonic receiver system includes a composite piezoelectric material and wherein the composite piezoelectric material comprises a 1-3 composite, a 2-2 composite or a 3-3 composite. The Office agrees. However, 1-3 composite, a 2-2 composite or a 3-3 composite are notorious in the art and the Office relies upon Kruger to remedy the shortcomings of Kruger. Moreover, the Office introduces Park et al. & Rathod et al. which teach of biomedical photoacoustic imaging with various composite arrangements such as 1-3, 2-2, 0-3, & 3-3 piezo-composites (see Park et al. pg. 717, ¶ 2 & Rathod et al. pf 11, ¶ 1-2).
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 ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith M. Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798