DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 4-6 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 4 recites that a mirror is positioned “in a manner forming most suitable refraction patterns of the sample.” The term “suitable” does not convey what the applicant deems the most suitable patterns or how the mirror’s position would relate to that. The term “suitable” 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.
Claim 5 (and 6) recites that the positioner “provides formation of desired refraction patterns.” The term “desired” does not convey what the applicant deems as desirable or how the positioner would contribute to that. The term “desired” 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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes et al., US 2019/0083059 in view of Cuche et al., US 6,262,818.
Claim 1. Byrnes teaches a digital hologram imaging device comprising:
a sample plane [target tissue 102 itself defines a plane, Figs. 3, 4, 7];
a digital camera, wherein obtained refraction patterns are recorded in the digital camera [optical sensor, Figs. 1-3, 5-7, 9, paras. 5, 29, 33-35, 44],
an acoustic module positioned at a top part of the body [Fig. 9 shows the ultrasound input 302 at the top], wherein the acoustic module has elements configured to produce and carry acoustic signals wherein the acoustic signals lead to controlled disturbances in a structure of the sample where measurements are realized [transducers/array 103, 302 generates ultrasound input to imaging volume in target tissue, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 9, paras. 32, 38, 40];
a laser module positioned at a lower part of the body [Fig. 9 shows light input 902 in a low position] and where rays with specific frequency values are obtained and guided [source/laser, Figs. 1-3, 5-7, 9, paras. 31,39, 42, 56, 57, 62];
a measurement module where the recorded refraction patterns are transferred from the digital camera and where quantitative values are obtained [tomography processor, Figs. 1-3, 5-7, 9, paras. 8-10, 29, 34, 36-38, 44].
Byrnes is silent on a body, objective and positioner. Cuche teaches a body [e.g. box around beam splitter, Fig. 2C], an objective [objective, Fig. 2C], and a positioner [e.g. the base shown under specimen, Fig. 2C].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using the elements in Byrnes to protect the optical elements from external dust, and to produce a focused, viewable image by coordinating sample position and lens focal length.
5. Cuche teaches the digital hologram imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the positioner provides viewing of the micro or nano-dimensioned structures positioned at a left lower region of the body [viewed from the rear of the page, the sample (the micro dimensional viewed structure) is to the lower left of the assembly, Fig. 2C] and provides formation of desired refraction patterns [see 112 rejection above].
6. Cuche teaches the digital hologram imaging device according to claim 5, wherein the positioner is positioned at an upper part of the body [mirror and other parts are below the positioner (horizontal platform under sample), i.e. the positioner is “at an upper part,” Fig. 2C].
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes and Cuche as cited above in view of Kandori et al., US 2017/0319179.
2. The above references are silent on a cable to drive the acoustic signals. Kandori teaches a device wherein the acoustic module comprises at least one carrier cable positioned at an upper part of the body, wherein the at least one carrier cable provides reaching of the acoustic signals, obtained in the acoustic module, to the sample [Figs. 1A, 3A, paras. 68, 160, 171, 226].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using a cable in order to allow control of the input frequencies that drive the transducer and to insulate these signals from the other components.
3. The digital hologram imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the acoustic module comprises at least one acoustic transducer, wherein the at least one acoustic transducer provides formation of different frequency values for the sample [transducers/array 103, 302 provides different frequencies to sample, Figs. 1, 3, 4, 9, paras. 30, 32, 38, 40].
Kandori teaches a connected carrier cable configured to provide carrying of signals [Figs. 1A, 3A, paras. 68, 160, 171, 226].
Claims 4, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes and Cuche as cited above in view of Garlick et al., US 2013/0033976.
7 (from 1). The above references are silent on phase compliant light (interpreted as coherent light). Garlick teaches a digital hologram imaging device wherein the laser module comprises at least one phase-compliant laser light source wherein the at least one phase-compliant laser light source provides regular illumination of a cell for the sample [coherent laser light, paras. 9, 51].
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to combine the references, using the elements in Byrnes to protect the optical elements from external dust, and to produce a focused, viewable image by coordinating sample position and lens focal length.
8. Garlick teaches a digital hologram imaging device according to claim 1, wherein the laser light source comprises at least one mirror, wherein the at least one mirror is configured to be fallen on the sample to be monitored and configured to be positioned at different angles [light source comprises a mirror among other elements, paras. 9, 51, 53].
4. Garlick teaches the digital hologram imaging device according to claim 1, wherein at least one mirror is positioned in an associated manner at an upper part of an acoustic transducer [associated manner is very broad and does not substantially limit the position of the mirror] and provides reflection of the rays, coming from the objectives, to the sample [light source comprises a mirror among other elements, paras. 9, 51, 53] in a manner forming most suitable refraction patterns of the sample [see 112 rejection above].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Timothy R Newlin whose telephone number is (571)270-3015. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Mountain Time.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/TIMOTHY R NEWLIN/ Examiner, Art Unit 2424