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.
Claim 1-18 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.
Claims 1 and 18 are indefinite because it is unclear if “disposes” implies an intended use of placing a device in a location or a structural limitation akin to “disposed on”, where the device is always placed in a location.
Claim 7 is indefinite because the relative term substantially renders the bounds unclear.
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 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. No. 2013/0039147 A1 to Witte et al. in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2011/0088477 A1 Someda et al.
Regarding claim 1, Witte discloses a device for acquiring a photoacoustic image and an ultrasonic image, which simultaneously acquires an optoacoustic image signal and an ultrasonic signal comprising a housing; a laser probe that disposes on an one side of the housing and outputs laser power to a to-be-examined object; a first ultrasonic probe that disposes on an another side of the housing in a direction perpendicular to the laser probe and receives a first ultrasonic input from the to-be-examined object by the laser output; and wherein the housing includes an upper support block that supports the laser probe on the upper surface thereof; and a lower support block that is coupled to a lower surface of the upper support block and supports the first ultrasonic probe on the side surface thereof (see Figs. 2, 29, and 35 and para 11-27, 112-117, and 125-134, noting that optical elements such as 32 and 34 are part of the laser probe held in the block).
Witte does not specifically disclose a second ultrasound transducer.
However, Someda discloses a similar photoacoustic device, comprising a second ultrasonic probe that disposes on the one side of the housing parallel to the laser probe and outputs an ultrasonic output to the to-be-examined object and receives a second ultrasonic input emitted from the to-be-examined object by the ultrasonic output (see Fig. 7 and para 15, 16, and 64-78) and in combination with Witte discloses a support block that supports the second ultrasonic probe (see Someda Fig. 7 and para 15, 16, and 64-78 and Witte Figs. 2, 29, and 35 and para 11-27, 112-117, and 125-134, noting additional holes would be provided for the second transducer to maintain the unitary structures shown in both Someda and Witte). See also U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0005613 A1.
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Witte and Someda because doing so would allow for non-degrade images that provide both functional and morphological information with the same convenient device.
Regarding claim 2, Wittie in combination with Someda disclose a device, wherein in the upper support block, a first through hole and a second through hole are provided, the first through hole penetrating the upper and lower surfaces thereof to support the laser probe and the second through hole penetrating the upper and lower surfaces of the upper support block to support the second ultrasonic probe, and in the lower support block, a third through hole is provided on the side surface of the upper support block to communicate with the first through hole (see Someda Fig. 7 and para 15, 16, and 64-78 and Witte Figs. 2, 29, and 35 and para 11-27, 112-117, and 125-134, noting additional holes would be provided for the second transducer to maintain the unitary structures shown in both Someda and Witte).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Witte and Someda because doing so would allow for non-degrade images that provide both functional and morphological information with the same convenient device.
Regarding claim 3, Wittie discloses a device, wherein in the lower support block, a first medium chamber and a second medium chamber are provided, the first medium chamber communicating with the first through hole to penetrate the upper and lower surfaces thereof and having an ultrasonic medium accommodated therein, and the second medium chamber communicating with the second through hole to penetrate the upper and lower surfaces thereof and having the ultrasonic medium accommodated therein (see Figs. 2, 29, and 35 and para 11-27, 112-117, and 125-134, noting that using an ultrasonic medium for both transducers would have been an obvious duplication of parts because doing so would provide acoustic matching for both ultrasound transducers).
Regarding claim 4, Wittie discloses a device, wherein a third through hole communicating with the first through hole is provided on a side surface of the lower support block, and the third through hole communicates with the first through hole through the first medium chamber (see Figs. 2, 29, and 35 and para 11-27, 112-117, and 125-134).
Regarding claim 5, Wittie in combination with Someda disclose a device, wherein on the lower surface of the lower support block, which is opposite to the surface in contact with the upper support block, a fourth through hole communicating with and penetrating the first medium chamber, and a fifth through hole communicating with and penetrating the second medium chamber, are provided (see Someda Fig. 7 and para 15, 16, and 64-78 and Witte Figs. 2, 29, and 35 and para 11-27, 112-117, and 125-134, noting additional holes would be provided for the second transducer to maintain the unitary structures shown in both Someda and Witte).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Witte and Someda because doing so would allow for non-degrade images that provide both functional and morphological information with the same convenient device.
Regarding claim 7, Wittie in combination with Someda disclose a device, wherein the housing has a substantially rectangular parallelepiped shape in which the laser probe and the second ultrasonic probe are supported side by side (see Someda Fig. 7 and para 15, 16, and 64-78 and Witte Figs. 2, 29, and 35 and para 11-27, 112-117, and 125-134, noting the shape is substantially rectangular and parallelepiped).
Examiner takes Official Notice that housings are well known to be rectangular and parallelepiped. Optimizing a shape of a housing would have been a mere matter of design (see for example U.S. PG Pub. No. 2014/0051971).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Witte and Someda because doing so would allow for non-degrade images that provide both functional and morphological information with the same convenient device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittie and Someda as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2021/0333530 A1 to Kim et al.
Regarding claim 6, Kim discloses a similar photoacoustic device, wherein, to allow a plate-shaped half mirror to pass and be mounted inside the first medium chamber, a slit communicating with the first medium chamber is provided from one side of the lower support block (see abstract and Figs. 1-3).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Wittie and Kim because doing so would allow the mirror to be placed inside the block housing at a desired location. Examiner notes that adapting the slit shape and size to fit the mirror of Wittie would have been a mere matter of design.
Claims 8-10 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittie and Someda as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2014/0024918 A1 to Hirota and U.S. PG Pub. No. 2009/0024039 A1 to Wang et al.
Regarding claims 8-10, Hirota discloses a similar photoacoustic device and Wang discloses a similar ultrasound device, wherein the laser probe and the second ultrasonic probe are spaced apart from each other in a first direction and disposed in parallel, and the second through hole has a rectangular shape elongated in the first direction (see Hirota Figs. 3-5 and para 90-102 and 109 and Wang Figs. 1 and 2 and abstract); wherein the second ultrasonic probe is horizontally movable in the first direction inside the second through hole (see Hirota Figs. 3-5 and para 90-102 and 109 and Wang Figs. 1 and 2 and abstract); and wherein a linear guide extending in the first direction and a driving motor for linearly moving the second ultrasonic probe along the linear guide are provided inside the first through hole (see Hirota Figs. 3-5 and para 90-102 and 109 and Wang Figs. 1 and 2 and abstract).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Wang and/or Hirota with Wittie because doing so would allow for a larger scan area as well as higher dimensional scans, such as 3D ultrasound.
Regarding claims 13 and 14, the combination of Wittie with Hirota and Wang disclose a device, wherein 3D image information for the to-be-examined object is generated by performing 2D scanning on the to-be-examined object by first-direction linear motions of the laser probe, the first ultrasonic probe, and the second ultrasonic probe, mounted on the combined body of the upper support block and the lower support block, and a second-direction linear motion that is substantially perpendicular to the first-direction linear motions, wherein a first position at which the laser output is focused on the to-be-examined object and a second position at which the ultrasonic output is focused are separated by a set separation distance; and wherein, at the same time point or within the same data input period, the laser output and the ultrasonic output are point-focused on different positions of the object (see Hirota Figs. 3-5 and para 90-102 and 109 and Wang Figs. 1 and 2 and abstract).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Wang and/or Hirota with Wittie because doing so would allow for a larger scan area as well as higher dimensional scans, such as 3d ultrasound.
Examiner notes that claims 13 and 14 are mostly functional limitations and the device of the combined prior art is capable of performing the claimed functional limitations.
Claims 15-17 fail to recite further structural limitations and the device of the combined prior is capable of performing the claimed functions.
Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wittie, Someda, Hirota, and Wang as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2011/0208057 A1 to Oikawa.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Oikawa discloses a similar photoacoustic device, wherein the second ultrasonic probe rotates about one axis of the side surface of the second ultrasonic probe inside the second through hole; and wherein a support shaft having both ends supported on the upper support block and fixed to the second ultrasonic probe, and a drive motor rotating the second ultrasonic probe about the support shaft are provided (see Fig. 3 and 56-59).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Wittie and Someda with the further teachings of Oikawa because doing so would predictably allow the device to image a desired angle.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PG Pub. No. 2013/0039147 A1 to Witte et al., in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2011/0088477 A1 Someda et al., in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2014/0024918 A1 to Hirota, and in view of U.S. PG Pub. No. 2009/0024039 A1 to Wang et al.
Regarding claim 18, Witte discloses a device for acquiring a photoacoustic image and an ultrasonic image, which simultaneously acquires an optoacoustic image signal and an ultrasonic signal comprising: a housing; a laser probe that disposes on an one side of the housing; a first ultrasonic probe that disposes on an another side of the housing in a direction perpendicular to the laser probe (see Figs. 2, 29, and 35 and para 11-27, 112-117, and 125-134, noting that optical elements such as 32 and 34 are part of the laser probe held in the block).
Witte does not specifically disclose a second ultrasound transducer.
However, Someda discloses a similar photoacoustic device, further comprising a second ultrasonic probe that disposes on the one side of the housing parallel to the laser probe (see Someda Fig. 7 and para 15, 16, and 64-78 and Witte Figs. 2, 29, and 35 and para 11-27, 112-117, and 125-134, noting additional holes would be provided for the second transducer to maintain the unitary structures shown in both Someda and Witte). See also U.S. PG Pub. No. 2015/0005613 A1.
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Witte and Someda because doing so would allow for non-degrade images that provide both functional and morphological information with the same convenient device.
Hirota discloses a similar photoacoustic device and Wang discloses a similar ultrasound device, wherein the second ultrasonic probe is formed to be horizontally movable in an one direction so that a distance between a first position focused on a to-be-examined object by the laser probe and a second position focused on the to-be-examined object by the second ultrasound probe is adjustable (see Hirota Figs. 3-5 and para 90-102 and 109 and Wang Figs. 1 and 2 and abstract).
It would have been obvious and predictable to have combined the teachings of Wang and/or Hirota with Wittie because doing so would allow for a larger scan area as well as higher dimensional scans, such as 3D ultrasound.
Response to Arguments
Although moot in view of the amendments to the claims, Applicant's arguments filed August 7, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant appears to argue that Someda does not disclose a laser and ultrasound probe parallel to each other.
Examiner disagrees because Someda discloses that the optical elements 32 are parallel to the second transducer elements 4. Further, in combination with Witte that already has an optical element with a perpendicular ultrasound element a skilled artisan would have added the second ultrasound transducer in Someda in a parallel orientation as disclosed in Someda.
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 RAJEEV P SIRIPURAPU whose telephone number is (571)270-3085. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 M-F.
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 is Keith Raymond. 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.
/RAJEEV P SIRIPURAPU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798