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 13-24 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 13 is rejected because “the elasticity”, “the following”, “the surface”, “the phase velocities”, “the fundamental mode” and “the set of pairs” all lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 14 is rejected because “the distance”, “the two furthest measurement points” and “the largest” all lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 15 is rejected because “the same impact point” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 16 is rejected because “the measurement point”, “the time instants” and “the positions” all lack proper antecedent basis. Claim 17 is rejected because “the following condition”, “the straight line”, “the position x” and “the number” lacks proper antecedent basis. Claim 20 is rejected because “the set of pairs” lack proper antecedent basis.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 13 and 19-20 and 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over NPL “Optical Coherence Elastography-OCT at work in tissue biomechanics” to Larin et al. “Larin” in view of NPL “High Resolution SAW elastography for ex-vivo porcine skin specimen” to Zhou et al. “Zhou”.
Regarding Claims 13 and 19-20, Larin discloses a non-invasive method for measuring a physical quantity representative of the elasticity of a material (Abstract) comprising deforming the material at an impact point with a stimulator to generate a shear wave comprising components at different frequencies (Pages 1188-1190, “Loading Methods”; Pages 1196-1197, “Surface elastic wave methods and applications”). Larin explains that phase velocities are determined at given depths (Fig. 10 and corresponding descriptions). However, Larin does not expressly disclose processing steps form a dispersion curve and transforming the dispersion curve into a profile of phase velocities as claimed.
Zhou teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to elastography systems and methods where displacement of the material over time at at least three measurement points aligned behind one another on a measurement axis is measured (Fig. 5A and corresponding descriptions). Zhou further discloses determining a phase velocity curve and from that a dispersion curve as a function of depth to generate an elasticity map (Page 5 and Figs. 1 and 4 and corresponding descriptions). Zhou explains the phase dispersion curve was obtained by selecting the phase velocity with maximal intensity for each frequency and removing the low SNR part (Page 5).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the elasticity system and method described by Larin to incorporate conventional elasticity processing techniques described by Zhou in order to enhance skin disease diagnosis and treatment monitoring (Zhang-Abstract). Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
As for Claims 22-24, Larin discloses measuring displacement amplitude (e.g. amplitude of the deformation) (Pages 1185 and 1196). In addition, Zhou depicts system components including a processor, optical sensors, and the sample in water (Fig. 3). Examiner notes that the shear wave would create a “jet” fluid on the surface of the material in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14-18 and 21 are considered allowable over the prior art of record because the art of record does not appear to disclose the particulars of the equations claimed.
Conclusion
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