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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 8/26/25 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claims 17, 20, and 25 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 17, line 3, ‘portion’ should be deleted.
In claim 20, line 20, it appears ‘the’ should be added before ‘light’.
In claim 25, it appears the dependency should be to claim 24.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 8, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In claims 8 and 25, the limitation sets forth that the fiber is cut/cleaved when it is already claimed that the fiber is bowed/bent. However, the specification only appears to have support for one or the other but not both (see published 0098). In claim 14, the detector is claimed as a part of the probe. However, the specification sets forth that the detector is part of a system that is coupled to the probe.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 20, 22, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Swanson et al (US 11,681,093 -previously cited).
Re claim 20: Swanson discloses a system comprising:
an imaging probe comprising:
a housing (Fig 2A; see housing 206),
at least one excitation optical element at least partially disposed within the housing, wherein the at least one excitation optical element comprises (i) at least one excitation fiber configured to deliver excitation pulses to a target location through an aperture and (ii) a lens positioned between the at least one excitation fiber and the aperture, and
a signal collecting element adjacent to the lens, wherein:
light received by the signal collecting element does not pass through the lens,
the signal collecting element comprises a plurality of fibers circumferentially arranged around the at least one excitation optical element in a single ring or multiple rings (Fig 2A and 7; col 10 lines 40-47; col 19 line 64-col 20 line 1; col 20 lines 15-27; see the multicore fiber with a central excitation fiber and peripheral ring-shaped arrangement of collection fibers wherein each fiber may have a separate lens that is positioned at the distal end of the fiber between the fiber and the opening/aperture at the end of the probe, indicating that the light received does not pass through the separate lens of the central excitation fiber), and
a detector operatively coupled to the imaging probe and configured to generate a signal based on light received from the signal collecting element (Fig 7; see the detection components 702, 703).
Re claim 22: The imaging probe has an imaging signal depth between 0-2000 microns (Fig 7; wherein the signal from the tissue includes the returned portion from regions less than 2,000 microns even if it also returns signals from regions further than 2,000 microns).
Re claim 23: The probe housing comprises a plurality of tubes to facilitate axial scanning at different depths (Fig 1; see that an outer housing/sheath may be used).
Re claim 25: An end of the fiber of the plurality of fibers is cut at an angle measured from a longitudinal axis of the housing to a line tangent to the end of the fiber (Fig 2A; see the cleaved end of the fibers).
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, 3-6, 8-10, 12-14, 16-19, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al (US 11,681,093 -previously cited) in view of Rigneault et al (US Pub 2021/0382290).
Re claims 1, 9, 24: Swanson discloses an imaging probe comprising:
a housing (Fig 2A; see housing 206);
at least one excitation optical element at least partially disposed within the housing, wherein the at least one excitation optical element comprises (i) at least one excitation fiber configured to deliver excitation pulses to a target location through an aperture and (ii) a lens positioned between the at least one excitation fiber and the aperture; and
a signal collecting element disposed adjacent to the lens, wherein:
light received by the signal collecting element does not pass through the lens,
the signal collecting element comprises a plurality of fibers circumferentially arranged around the at least one excitation optical element in a single ring or multiple rings (Fig 2A and 7; col 10 lines 40-47; col 19 line 64-col 20 line 1; col 20, lines 15-27; see the multicore fiber with a central excitation fiber and peripheral ring-shaped arrangement of collection fibers wherein each fiber may have a separate lens that is positioned at the distal end of the fiber between the fiber and the opening/aperture at the end of the probe, indicating that the light received does not pass through the separate lens of the central excitation fiber).
Swanson discloses all features including that the fibers are cleaved to control directivity (see Fig 2A), but does not disclose a fiber of the plurality of fibers is bent relative to a fiber of the at least one excitation fiber or that multiple rings of fibers are present. However, Rigneault teaches of a device for controlling light beams including a fiber bundle (Fig 3B; see the central fiber surrounding by rings of peripheral fibers that are bent relative the central fiber), wherein the bundle includes multiple rings of fibers. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Swanson, to incorporate the bent multiple-ring peripheral fibers as taught by Rigneault, to enhance the directivity control of the light beams.
Re claim 3: Swanson discloses the light comprises at least one of two- photon fluorescence signals, three-photon fluorescence signals, second harmonic generation signals, and third harmonic generation signals (col 1, lines 10-25; see the fluoroscopic light such that the probe is capable of receiving at least 2-photon fluorescence as the limitation is not structural).
Re claim 4: Swanson discloses the probe comprises a hollow tube positioned on an end of the housing and configured to adjustably offset the lens from a surface to be imaged (Fig 1; see the housing/sheath 120 that is adjusted and offsets the lens from the tissue).
Re claims 5, 6: Swanson discloses the plurality of fibers of a number between 3 and 40 and which are circumferentially arranged around the lens (Fig 2A; see the peripheral fibers around the central fiber with its own separate lens).
Re claim 8: Swanson discloses an end of the fiber of the plurality of fibers is cut at an angle measured from a longitudinal axis of the housing to a line tangent to the end of the fiber, and wherein the angle is between 1 degree and 50 degrees (Fig 2A; see the cleaved fiber ends).
Re claim 10: Swanson discloses at least one excitation fiber extends through at least a portion of the housing (Fig 2A; see the central fiber within the housing).
Re claim 12: Swanson discloses the aperture comprises a transparent window (Figs 2A, 6, 7; see the opening at the end of the probe which is a transparent window allowing the light to pass).
Re claim 13: Swanson discloses the at least one excitation optical element comprises a plurality of lenses (Fig 7; col 18, line 65; col 20 lines 24-27; col 20 line 67-col 21 line 4; see the lens array or multi element lens).
Re claim 14: Swanson discloses the probe comprises a detector configured to increase overall collection efficiency and output image data via a display (Fig 7; see the detection components 702, 703).
Re claim 16: Swanson discloses the imaging probe is embodied as an endoscope or table-top nonlinear microscope (col 3, lines 4-17; see the endoscope and microscope).
Re claim 17: Swanson discloses a handle, wherein a portion of the at least one excitation fiber and at least a portion of the signal collecting element extends through the handle portion and a length of the housing (Fig 7; see the proximal portion of the probe that constitutes a handle where the collection element fibers extend through the handle).
Re claims 18, 19: Swanson discloses a motor disposed within the handle, where the motor is configured to actuate axial scanning of the imaging probe to facilitate an imaging depth adjustment (col 4 lines 60-67; see the motor in PIU 103; wherein the pull back is used for axial scanning).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson/Rigneault, further in view of Benabid (US Pub 2020/0241281 -previously cited).
Re claim 11: Swanson discloses all features except the at least one fiber comprises an air-core bandgap fiber or an air-core Kagome fiber. However, Benabid teaches of an optical fiber that is a Kagome fiber [0009, 0010; see the Kagome fiber]. It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Swanson, as taught by Benabid, in order to ensure a good radiant flux performance.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson/Rigneault, further in view of Engelbrecht et al (“Ultra-compact fiber-optic two-photon microscope for functional fluorescence imaging in vivo” -previously cited).
Re claim 15: Swanson/Rigneault disclose all features except that the detector comprises at least one of a photomultiplier-tube (PMT) or module and a Hybrid (HyD) detector. However, Engelbrecht teaches of a PMT detector component operatively coupled to the imaging probe that is configured to receive the signals (figure 1 and its description; see the PMT for image reconstruction). It would have been obvious to the skilled artisan to modify Swanson/Rigneault, to use a PMT as taught by Engelbrecht, in order to facilitate image reconstruction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the references applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The prior claim objections and 112 rejections are withdrawn due to amendments.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T ROZANSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-1648. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:00-4:00.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/MICHAEL T ROZANSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797