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 § 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 1-13 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. Claim 1 is rejected because the preamble states generating at least one of an image, or a tissue map of a subject or providing a report while the final step only constructs an image or report. Thus, it is unclear if the tissue map is the image.
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, 8, 11-12, 16-19, 23-31, 35-37 and 40-41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Full Non-contact laser ultrasound: first human data” to Zhang et al. “Zhang” in view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0012963 to Bayram et al. “Bayram” and U.S. Publication No. 2014/0024928 to Boctor et al. “Boctor”.
As for Claims 1-4, 6, 8, 11-12, 16-19, 23, 25-31, 35, 37 and 40-41, Zhang discloses a method for generating an image of a subject comprising transmitting EM waves (e.g. pulsed laser) to a subject without patient contact external to the human body (Pages 2-3, “Results”; Page 9, “Materials and Methods”). Zhang explains that the transmitted EM waves generate heat for thermoacoustic conversion (Page 2; Left Column) and an optical detector is used to measure the acoustic propagating waves to sense, temporally measure and spatially map acoustic/mechanical vibrational waves (Page 9, “Materials and Methods”; laser vibrometer). Images were constructed based on the sensed and measured acoustic propagating waves (Fig. 1, Fig. 4 and Page 9, “Materials and Methods”).
However, Zhang does not expressly disclose wherein the thermoacoustic conversion is created from transmitting RF waves without contact as now claimed.
Bayram teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to diagnostic imaging where an RF transmitter may be used to generate acoustic propagating waves with a horn antenna with a carrier frequency of 1.8-2.4 GHz and a pulse modulation between 50 kHz and 300 kHz(Abstract; Paragraphs [0010], [0089] and [0098]). Bayram detects the ultrasound wave in the brain (Paragraph [0002]). Thus, the RF waves travel through bone and into soft tissue as claimed.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used any conventionally known transmitting means including Bayram’s horn antenna to induce acoustic propagating waves in Zhang’s system. Such a modification merely involves a simple substitution of one known transmitting means for another to yield predictable results. Boctor is also cited herein to support the conclusion of obviousness where a microwave transmitter may be used to create thermoacoustic pulses within the body to be received by an optical receiver (Paragraph [0049]).
As for Claims 7, 24 and 36, Examiner notes that the subject (e.g. human subject) has soft tissue and bone and the waves propagate through the tissue in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim(s) 4-5, 19-2020 and 31-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Bayram and Boctor as applied to Claims 1, 18 and 30 above and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2004/0019282 to Mullen et al. “Mullen”.
Regarding Claims 4-5, 19-20 and 31-32, Zhang, Bayram and Boctor discloses a system and method for generating an image of an acoustic wave generated by transmitting RF waves to the subject and performing detection with a vibrometer as described above. However, the art of record does not specify other detection systems including LIDAR.
Mullen teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to diagnostic imaging where LIDAR can be used to detect the presence of objects and may include an optical carrier signal operating at about 1064 nm (Abstract; Paragraphs [0022] and [0023] and Claim 2).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used other types of optical detectors as described by Mullen as such a modification merely involves a simple substitution of one known optical detector for another to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Bayram and Boctor as applied to claims 8 and 37 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,128,032 to Carson et al. “Carson”.
As for Claims 9-10 and 38-39, Zhang, Bayram and Boctor discloses a system and method for generating an image of an acoustic wave generated by transmitting RF waves to the subject as described above. However, the art of record does not specify the image generation done with conventional processing techniques such as synthetic aperture construction and time series measurements.
Carson teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to diagnostic imaging where propagating ultrasound waves can be converted into image data with time series data and synthetic aperture image construction (Column 1, Lines 20-50 and Column 19, Lines 15-45).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have implemented conventional image processing techniques as described by Carson in order to enhance the image reconstruction. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Bayram and Boctor as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NPL “Wearable Microwave Imager and BMI Development” to Libove et al. “Libove”.
As for Claim 13, Zhang, Bayram and Boctor discloses a system and method for generating an image of an acoustic wave generated by transmitting RF waves to the subject as described above but fail to specify the claimed detection scheme.
Libove teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to diagnostic RF systems and methods where an array of transmit/receive assemblies emit/detect frequency swept sine waves or UWB pulse trains (“Basic Microwave Brain Imager Architecture”.
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have used conventional detection schemes described by Libove in order to obtain depth information of objects within the head of a patient. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13, 16-20, 23-32 and 35-41 have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 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 CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights