DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-2, and 4 are pending in the application. Claims 1-2, and 4 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b).
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
Examiner notes an amendment to the specification was stated on page 6 and page 17 the remarks. However, this is not the proper method of making amendments to the specification. MPEP 714(II)(A) states “(B) a section (must begin on a separate sheet) entitled "Amendments to the Specification" (if there are any amendments to the specification). This section should include all amendments to the specification including amendments to the abstract of the disclosure”. The amendment to the specification is therefore not entered.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 9/18/2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of 18/764,591 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 9/18/2025. These drawings are unacceptable. The drawings add the following new matter:
Fig. 20 was amended to remove the arrow between 2093 and 2094, remove the arrow between 2094 and 2090, and remove the arrow between 2092 and 2093.
Fig. 20 added an arrow between 2092 and 2090.
Fig. 22 removed the arrow between 2294 and 2295, and removed the arrow between 2295 and 2296.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0228] recites “By way of example related to FIG. 17”. It should recite “By way of example related to FIG. 18”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered Claim 3 has been renumbered Claim 4.
Claims 1-2, and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “two photoacoustic lase excitation sources that works” in line 2. It should recite “two photoacoustic excitation laser sources configured to work”.
Claim 1 recites “two photoacoustic excitation laser sources that works” in line 5. It should recite “the two photoacoustic excitation laser sources configured to work”.
Claim 1 recites “the two photoacoustic laser sources that works” in lines 14-15. It should recite “the two photoacoustic excitation laser sources configured to work”.
Claim 1 recites “a 3-axis inertial measurement units (IMUs)” in line 18. It should recite “3-axis inertial measurements units (IMUs)”.
Claim 1 recites “the laser sources” in lines 18-19. It should recite “the two photoacoustic laser excitation sources”.
Claim 1 recites “the colored camera” in lines 19-20. It should recite “the color camera”.
Claim 1 recites “the black/white camera” in line 20. It should recite “the black and white camera”.
Claim 2 recites “two photoacoustic lase excitation sources that works” in line 2. It should recite “two photoacoustic excitation laser sources configured to work”.
Claim 2 recites “two photoacoustic excitation laser sources that works” in line 5. It should recite “the two photoacoustic excitation laser sources configured to work”.
Claim 2 recites “the two photoacoustic excitation sources that works” in lines 14-15. It should recite “the two photoacoustic excitation laser sources configured to work”.
Claim 2 recites “and a 3-axis inertial measurement units (IMUs)” in line 19. It should recite “and 3-axis inertial measurements units (IMUs)”.
Claim 2 recites “the laser sources” in lines 19-20. It should recite “the two photoacoustic laser excitation sources”.
Claim 2 recites “the colored camera” in lines 20-21. It should recite “the color camera”.
Claim 2 recites “the black/white camera” in line 21. It should recite “the black and white camera”.
Claim 4 recites “two photoacoustic lase excitation sources that works” in line 2. It should recite “two photoacoustic excitation laser sources configured to work”.
Claim 4 recites “two photoacoustic excitation laser sources that works” in line 5. It should recite “the two photoacoustic excitation laser sources configured to work”.
Claim 4 recites “the two photoacoustic laser sources that works” in line 14. It should recite “the two photoacoustic excitation laser sources configured to work”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-2 and 4 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 recites “two photoacoustic laser excitation source… to direct ultrasonic waves into a desired area of the tissue”. It is not clear if the lasers are producing ultrasonic waves which are then directed into the tissue, or laser light which then interacts with tissue to create ultrasonic waves. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 1 recites “the speed of sound”. However, the speed of sound changes based on what medium it is traveling through. It is not clear what mediums the acoustic energy is traveling through, and therefore not clear what the speed of sound would be. Clarification it required. For the purposes of examination, the speed of sound will be interpreted as the speed of sound in tissue. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “a speed of sound”.
Claim 1 recites “two photoacoustic laser excitation sources” in line 5. It is not clear if this is referring to the two photoacoustic laser excitation sources previously set forth, or if this is set forth new laser excitation sources. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “the two photoacoustic laser excitation sources”.
The term “minimal wavelength displacement” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimal wavelength displacement” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the minimal wavelength displacement in order to form laser stereometry images would be. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, if the wavelength displacement allows for the creation of laser stereometry images, then it will be considered minimal wavelength displacement.
Claim 1 recites “laser stereometry images”. The specification defines laser stereometry as having the “art defined” meaning in [0069]. However, the specification then appears to refer to the resulting photoacoustic images as the “laser images” [0187]. Photoacoustic images are not laser stereometry images by the ordinary and customary definition of laser stereometry images. The term is not clear. For the purposes of examination, the ordinary and customary definition of “laser stereometry” images will be used.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a surface”. The Examiner recommends amending “the surface” to “a surface”.
Claim 1 recites “tissue” in line 8. It is not clear if this is referring to the tissue previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new tissue. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner recommends amending “tissue” to “the tissue”.
Claim 1 recites “ultrasonic waveform sources” in line 12. It is not clear if this is referring to the ultrasonic waveform sources previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new ultrasonic waveform sources. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner recommends amending “ultrasonic waveform sources” to “the ultrasonic waveform sources”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interferometric receiving system" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “an interferometric receiving system”. The Examiner recommends amending “the interferometric receiving system” to “an interferometric receiving system”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the global positioning system (GPS)" in lines 15-16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a global positioning system (GPS)”. The Examiner recommends amending "the global positioning system (GPS)" to “a global positioning system (GPS)”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the color camera" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a color camera”. The Examiner recommends amending "the color camera" to “a color camera”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the black and white camera" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a black and white camera”. The Examiner recommends amending "the black and white camera" to “a black and white camera”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the stepping motors" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as stating “stepping motors”. The Examiner recommends amending "the stepping motors" to “stepping motors”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the interferometer" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as referring to “the interferometric receiving system”.
Claim 1 recites “two focused compensation lenses” in line 19. It is not clear if this is referring to the “lens apparatus” previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new lenses. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the area of interest" in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “an area of interest”.
Claim 2 recites “two photoacoustic laser excitation source… to direct ultrasonic waves into a desired area of the tissue”. It is not clear if the lasers are producing ultrasonic waves which are then directed into the tissue, or laser light which then interacts with tissue to create ultrasonic waves. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 2 recites “the speed of sound”. However, the speed of sound changes based on what medium it is traveling through. It is not clear what mediums the acoustic energy is traveling through, and therefore not clear what the speed of sound would be. Clarification it required. For the purposes of examination, the speed of sound will be interpreted as the speed of sound in tissue. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “a speed of sound”.
Claim 2 recites “two photoacoustic laser excitation sources” in line 5. It is not clear if this is referring to the two photoacoustic laser excitation sources previously set forth, or if this is set forth new laser excitation sources. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “the two photoacoustic laser excitation sources”.
The term “minimal wavelength displacement” in claim 2 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimal wavelength displacement” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the minimal wavelength displacement in order to form laser stereometry images would be. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, if the wavelength displacement allows for the creation of laser stereometry images, then it will be considered minimal wavelength displacement.
Claim 2 recites “laser stereometry images”. The specification defines laser stereometry as having the “art defined” meaning in [0069]. However, the specification then appears to refer as the resulting photoacoustic images as the “laser images” [0187]. Photoacoustic images are not laser stereometry images by the ordinary and customary definition of laser stereometry images. The term is not clear. For the purposes of examination, the ordinary and customary definition of “laser stereometry” images will be used.
Claim 2 recites “tissue” in line 8. It is not clear if this is referring to the tissue previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new tissue. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner recommends amending “tissue” to “the tissue”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the photoacoustic excitation" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as referring to the photoacoustic laser excitation sources directing the ultrasonic waves into the tissue.
Claim 2 recites “ultrasonic waveform sources” in line 12. It is not clear if this is referring to the ultrasonic waveform sources previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new ultrasonic waveform sources. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner recommends amending “ultrasonic waveform sources” to “the ultrasonic waveform sources”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the interferometric receiving system" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “an interferometric receiving system”. The Examiner recommends amending “the interferometric receiving system” to “an interferometric receiving system”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the global positioning system (GPS)" in lines 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a global positioning system (GPS)”. The Examiner recommends amending "the global positioning system (GPS)" to “a global positioning system (GPS)”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the color camera" in line 16. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a color camera”. The Examiner recommends amending "the color camera" to “a color camera”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the black and white camera" in lines 16-17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a black and white camera”. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a black and white camera”. The Examiner recommends amending "the black and white camera" to “a black and white camera”.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the stepping motors" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as stating “stepping motors”. The Examiner recommends amending "the stepping motors" to “stepping motors”.
Claim 4 recites “two photoacoustic laser excitation source… to direct ultrasonic waves into a desired area of the tissue”. It is not clear if the lasers are producing ultrasonic waves which are then directed into the tissue, or laser light which then interacts with tissue to create ultrasonic waves. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 4 recites “the speed of sound”. However, the speed of sound changes based on what medium it is traveling through. It is not clear what mediums the acoustic energy is traveling through, and therefore not clear what the speed of sound would be. Clarification it required. For the purposes of examination, the speed of sound will be interpreted as the speed of sound in tissue. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “a speed of sound”.
Claim 4 recites “two photoacoustic laser excitation sources” in line 5. It is not clear if this is referring to the two photoacoustic laser excitation sources previously set forth, or if this is set forth new laser excitation sources. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner recommends amending the claim to state “the two photoacoustic laser excitation sources”.
The term “minimal wavelength displacement” in Claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “minimal wavelength displacement” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what the minimal wavelength displacement in order to form laser stereometry images would be. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, if the wavelength displacement allows for the creation of laser stereometry images, then it will be considered minimal wavelength displacement.
Claim 4 recites “laser stereometry images”. The specification defines laser stereometry as having the “art defined” meaning in [0069]. However, the specification then appears to refer to the resulting photoacoustic images as the “laser images” [0187]. Photoacoustic images are not laser stereometry images by the ordinary and customary definition of laser stereometry images. The term is not clear. For the purposes of examination, the ordinary and customary definition of “laser stereometry” images will be used.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the surface" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a surface”. The Examiner recommends amending “the surface” to “a surface”.
Claim 4 recites “tissue” in line 8. It is not clear if this is referring to the tissue previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new tissue. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner recommends amending “tissue” to “the tissue”.
Claim 4 recites “ultrasonic waveform sources” in line 12. It is not clear if this is referring to the ultrasonic waveform sources previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new ultrasonic waveform sources. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner recommends amending “ultrasonic waveform sources” to “the ultrasonic waveform sources”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the interferometric receiving system" in line 14. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “an interferometric receiving system”. The Examiner recommends amending “the interferometric receiving system” to “an interferometric receiving system”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the global positioning system (GPS)" in lines 14-15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a global positioning system (GPS)”. The Examiner recommends amending "the global positioning system (GPS)" to “a global positioning system (GPS)”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the color camera" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a color camera”. The Examiner recommends amending "the color camera" to “a color camera”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the black and white camera" in line 15. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “a black and white camera”. The Examiner recommends amending "the black and white camera" to “a black and white camera”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the portable device" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the portable device will be interpreted as referring to the robotic platform.
Claim 4 recites “two focused compensation lenses” in line 18. It is not clear if this is referring to the “lens apparatus” previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new lenses. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the area of interest" in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as reciting “an area of interest”.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, and 4 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claims 1 and 2 would be allowable for the same reasons set forth on pages 12-14 of the non-rejection mailed 4/18/2025.
Claim 4 recites “A portable system comprising of:
a) two photoacoustic laser excitation sources that works simultaneously and in synchronization to direct ultrasonic waves into a desired area of tissue via a lens apparatus distributing acoustic energy into the tissue at the speed of sound;
b) two photoacoustic laser excitation sources that works simultaneously. in conjunction with one another, and in synchronization with minimal wavelength displacement in order to form laser stereometry images
c) a receiver device configured to optically detect vibrations at the surface of tissue coming from the two photoacoustic laser excitation sources;
d) a data acquisition system configured to process data originating from backscattering of ultrasonic waveform sources on the surface of the tissue;
e) a processor system configured to detect ultrasonic waveform sources to assess an internal structure of organs and tissues;
f) a robotic platform configured to include the two photoacoustic laser sources that works simultaneously and in synchronization, the interferometric receiving system, the global positioning system (GPS). the color camera and the black and white camera;
g) a 3-axis inertial measurement unit (IMU) mounted on the portable device;
h) and two focused compensation lenses for directing the two photoacoustic excitation laser sources into the tissue or the area of interest”. This is not taught by the prior art without the benefit of improper hindsight.
Zhang et al. (Zhang, Xiang, et al. "Full noncontact laser ultrasound: first human data." Light: Science & Applications 8.1 (2019): 119.) teaches a system for laser ultrasound with two photoacoustic laser sources (Pg. 4, Fig. 1a) and a data acquisition system configured to process data originating from the backscattering of ultrasonic waveform sources on the surface of the tissue; a processor system configured to detect ultrasonic waveform sources to assess an internal structure of organs and tissues (Pg. 3-4, Fig. 1a, computer). However, Zhang does not teach “two photoacoustic laser excitation sources working simultaneously, in conjunction with one another, and in synchronization with minimal wavelength displacement in order to form laser stereometry images” or “f) a robotic platform configured to include the two photoacoustic laser sources that works simultaneously and in synchronization, the interferometric receiving system, the global positioning system (GPS). the color camera and the black and white camera; g) a 3-axis inertial measurement unit (IMU) mounted on the portable device”. Haji Reza et al. (U.S Patent 11,841,315 B2) and Kontiola (U.S PGPub 2016/0066786 A1) similarly teach a non-contact ultrasound system (Abstract). However, the references do not teach “two photoacoustic laser excitation sources working simultaneously, in conjunction with one another, and in synchronization with minimal wavelength displacement in order to form laser stereometry images” or “f) a robotic platform configured to include the two photoacoustic laser sources that works simultaneously and in synchronization, the interferometric receiving system, the global positioning system (GPS). the color camera and the black and white camera g) a 3-axis inertial measurement unit (IMU) mounted on the portable device”.
Claim 4 would therefore be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 9/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the interpretation taken by the rejections under 35 USC 112(b) were accurate, and therefore did not amend the claims to correct the issues under 35 USC 112(b). MPEP 2173.06 states “Thus, when the examiner determines that a claim term or phrase renders the claim indefinite, the examiner should make a rejection based on indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as well as a rejection(s) in view of the prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 that renders the prior art applicable based on the examiner’s interpretation of the claim. See In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1312, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1788 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (stating that the prima facie case is appropriately used for making an indefiniteness rejection). When making a rejection over prior art in these circumstances, it is important that the examiner state on the record how the claim term or phrase is being interpreted with respect to the prior art applied in the rejection”. The interpretation of the claims stated on the record were for the purposes of interpreting the claims in light of the prior art; the fact the interpretation of the claim terms was consistent with what the claim invention was intended to be does not make the current language definite. The claims still contain the language that is considered indefinite, and the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) is maintained.
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 SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798