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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 10/23/20205, 01/20/2026, and 03/18/2026 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1-2 and 5-14 remain pending, claims 1-2 and 5-14 have been amended, and claims 3-4 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
IDS
Applicant's IDS filed 01/20/2026 only lists some of the documents cited in the specification and some of the documents which have been cited and applicant has provided copies thereof are not complete, as the provided copies are missing pages. See documents having a line through on the annotated IDS. Applicant should provide the remaining documents cited in the specification that have not been cited on the most recent IDS by submitting a new IDS with those missing documents and to correct the documents with missing pages as submitted on 01/20/2026.
Drawing Objections
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states in the second from final paragraph on page 7 through the second from final paragraph of page 8 list of amendments applicant is made to drawings.
In response, with specific regard to the previous objection to figures 8 and 94 illustrating non-legible text, specific objection has been rendered moot by the drawings filed on 01/20/2026. However, the drawings are objected for presenting non-labeled/non-identified components within the drawing. It is also noted that applicant has now incorporated reference character numbers 7 and 9 into the figures, rendering the specific objections for the dipole elements free oscillator moot. Accordingly, these specific objections have been withdrawn. However, applicant has now presented reference character number 34 has also referencing a free oscillator(s), therefore the drawings are now objected regarding the reference characters 34 and 9 both been used to reference the free oscillator(s). The remaining drawing objections have been updated below to provide clarity on the specific portions of the claimed subject matter which is not shown and is therefore still objected to.
Accordingly, the drawings remain objected and the objections have been made final.
Specification Objections
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
It is noted that applicant has amended the specification in regards to the previously objected hyperlinks to cross out the “http://” portion of the hyperlink but still include and reinserted the rest of the objected to links. Both links need to be removed. Therefore, the specification remains finally objected.
Claim Objections
Light of applicant’s amendments filed 01/20/2026 the previous objections to claims 1-2, 6-8, 10-14 have been rendered moot and are withdrawn. However, claim 9 still contains objected to subject matter and remains finally objected.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With specific regard to the prior rejections under 112(a), the present amendments to the claims render these specific rejections moot and the rejections under 112(a) have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues in the fifth paragraph of page 10 through the eighth paragraph of page 11
“Additionally, the signals generated by the electromagnetic source unit have been ordered differently to further clarify that there are three different signals, which are generated. In each case, one reads ‘a’ pump signal, ‘a’ probe signal and ‘a’ test and reference signal. Thus, there is a single signal which functions as a pump signal, a single probe signal and a signal which functions as a test and reference. Further, the claim wording has been amended so as to create the needed antecedence.
With respect to the rejections raised with regard to Claim 3 as filed, which has been incorporated into independent claim 1 and Applicant notes that the frequency and amplitude parameters given for the pump signal and the frequency parameter of the probe signal, one obtains the desired effect.
With respect to amended Claim 6, Applicant notes that the free oscillator is configured to generate a RF signal with a frequency corresponding to one fundamental frequency (within UHF band) + its harmonics. In other words, the RF signal is at a selectable fundamental frequency within the UHF band (300 MHz to 3 GHz) and harmonic multiples (2f, 3f, 4f...) of the fundamental frequency, which are all simultaneously output for use as the pump signal and the probe signal.
Amended Claim 7 introduces that the probe is to be held in the hand and that the user can move it so as' to move the probe for exploring the biological tissue of interest. Applicant has amended Claim 7 so as to make it clear that the probe is of the type which is handheld and that it allows the user to move it for scanning the biological tissue of interest (i.e. to investigate different areas of the biological tissue).
Additionally, with regard to Claim 8, it is to be noted that the claimed principle relates to one broadband signal containing three spectral components, separated via filtering. The concept is similar to a FM radio in which a single antenna receives all broadcast signals (88-108 MHz), the tuner/filter separates the desired station (e.g., 101.5 MHz) and a demodulator extracts the audio.
With regard to amended claim 10, one needs to consider that the signals encompass all electromagnetic signals captured by the antenna, which includes the probe signal (reflected/scattered from tissue), the test-and-reference signal (radiatively transmitted from the source) and the phase-conjugate signal (generated by tissue when malignant).
With regard to amended claim 11, it is to be understood that a phased array antenna is used relying on constructive/destructive interference…
Amended Claim 14 has been amended so as to have a more concise claim language…”.
In response, it is noted that while applicant argues that “there is a single signal which functions as a pump signal, a single probe signal and a signal which functions as a test and reference”, this subject matter is not recited in the claims and therefore has not been interpreted as being recited in the claims.
While claims 3-4 have been canceled and their subject matter has been incorporated into the present amendments of claim 1, any reasons outlined in prior indefiniteness rejections of canceled claim 3-4 which have not been remedied in the present amendments to claim 1, now have caused claim 1 to be rejected for the same and/or similar reasons outlined in the previous rejections of claims 3-4. Therefore, as noted above, while applicant argues that “the frequency and amplitude parameters given for the pump signal and the frequency parameter of the probe signal, one obtains the desired effect”, this subject matter is not recited in the claims and therefore has not been interpreted as being recited in the claims.
As noted above, while applicant argues against that “[i]n other words, the RF signal is at a selectable fundamental frequency within the UHF band (300 MHz to 3 GHz) and harmonic multiples (2f, 3f, 4f...) of the fundamental frequency, which are all simultaneously output for use as the pump signal and the probe signal”, this subject matter is not recited in the claims and therefore has not been interpreted as being recited in the claims.
And while applicant argues that amendments to claim 7 have been made “so as to make it clear that the probe is of the type which is handheld and that it allows the user to move it for scanning the biological tissue of interest (i.e. to investigate different areas of the biological tissue)”, applicant has not addressed the later portion of the rejection outlining the issues where no active step is claimed for performing functions recited. Therefore, as no corresponding subject matter is recited in the claims for actively claiming said functions, no such meaning been interpreted as being recited in the claims.
Similarly, with regards to claim 8, applicant states that “it is to be noted that the claimed principle relates to one broadband signal containing three spectral components, separated via filtering. The concept is similar to a FM radio in which a single antenna receives all broadcast signals (88-108 MHz), the tuner/filter separates the desired station (e.g., 101.5 MHz) and a demodulator extracts the audio”, applicant has not addressed the later portion of the rejection outlining the issues where no active step is claimed for performing functions recited. Therefore, as no corresponding subject matter is recited in the claims for actively claiming said functions, no such meaning been interpreted as being recited in the claims. And no such limitation is present in the claims which claims the subject matter outlined in applicant’s above statement. Accordingly, the subject matter outlined in applicant’s statement has not been interpreted as being recited in the claims.
Regarding the rejection of claims 10 and 11, respectfully, applicant states that “one needs to consider that the signals encompass all electromagnetic signals captured by the antenna, which includes the probe signal (reflected/scattered from tissue), the test-and-reference signal (radiatively transmitted from the source) and the phase-conjugate signal (generated by tissue when malignant)” and “it is to be understood that a phased array antenna is used relying on constructive/destructive interference”. And as similar with the responses above, applicant is reminded that no such limitations are present in the claims which claims the subject matter outlined in applicant’s above statements. Accordingly, the subject matter outlined in applicant’s statement has not been interpreted as being recited in the claims.
And as applicant has indicated claim 14 has been amended to recite “more concise claim language”, the amendments nor applicant’s response address the body of the outstanding rejection of claim 14.
Applicant has provided no response to the outstanding rejections of claims 2, 4 (now canceled and subject matter thereof has been incorporated into present claim 1), 5, nor 12-13.
It is noted that applicant has not amended the claims to address the numerous previous and currently outstanding antecedent basis issues outlined in the 12b rejections of the claims.
Further, the present amendments to the claims have introduced new clarity issues to the claims.
Accordingly, the rejections have been updated to reflect the current claim language and the rejections have been made final.
Rejections under 35 USC 103
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection has been presented. Consequently, the arguments do not apply to new references or the new combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered. Applicant is required to provide a new IDS which cites each of the documents listed in the specification and to provide the corresponding copies for each of these documents.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "34" and "9" have both been used to designate “free oscillators". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the interaction of the electromagnetic probe signal with collective and cooperative type effects induced by the electromagnetic pump signal, the comparable [comparison] to a state of Faraday instability; the RF signal that is generated at fundamental frequency at a UHF band frequency and the harmonics thereof; the simultaneously received signal that transmitted by the probe at a fundamental frequency and at a second and a third harmonic; power-supply and control circuits; the spatial and spectral filter; an area or an organ of the patient under examination at different points on a surface positioned at a given distance; passive broadband elements or elements resonating at one of the frequencies received or active elements all must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because FIGS. 1-3, 8-9 contain sub-images that are not labeled and subcomponents as illustrated do not contain identifying elements, FIGS. 4, 8 does not contain legible text. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: each of these claims recite at least one reference character, e. g., (1), (2), (3), (4), and/or (5), which is recited at least once in each of the objected claims. These reference characters should be canceled from the claims. Appropriate correction is required.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because it contains an embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code. Applicant is required to delete the embedded hyperlink and/or other form of browser-executable code; references to websites should be limited to the top-level domain name without any prefix such as http:// or other browser-executable code. See MPEP § 608.01. And as noted in MPEP § 608.01, the attempt to incorporate subject matter into the patent application by reference to a hyperlink and/or other forms of browser-executable code is considered to be an improper incorporation by reference (emphasis added). Only when applicant does not intend to have these hyperlinks be active links, should these links not be objected to. As indicated by the disclosure provided by applicant in the amended specification, and in as filed, it appears applicant intends for these links to be active and the contents of these sites to which the hyperlinks are directed are part of applicant’s invention. Therefore, the incorporation of such does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a). 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 5-14 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 has been amended to recite “wherein the electromagnetic source unit comprises a free oscillator and is configured to generate and radiate: an electromagnetic pump signal; an electromagnetic probe signal; and a test and reference signal”, “wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive and measure in amplitude and phase the electromagnetic pump signal and the electromagnetic probe signal generated by the electromagnetic source unit and captured, in use, by the multi-band and multi-channel antenna”, “a pump signal frequency varies in discrete sub-bands in a range from 300 Megahertz (MHz) to 2800 MHz and frequencies of the electromagnetic probe signal and the test and reference signal are equal to half the pump signal frequency”, and “an amplitude of the pump signal lies in the range between 2 Volt per meter (V/m) and 20 V/m” which renders the claim indefinite in lines 7-27, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how many separate and independent signals the electromagnetic source unit is configured to generate, i.e., it is unclear if the electromagnetic source unit is configured to generate a 1. an electromagnetic pump signal, 2. an electromagnetic probe signal, 3. a test signal, and 4. a reference signal; or if the electromagnetic source unit is configured to generate a 1. an electromagnetic pump signal, 2. an electromagnetic probe signal, 3. a test and reference signal, where the third signal is a singular signal that is both a test and a reference signal.
It is also unclear if the signals received and measured in amplitude and phase by the receiving unit refer to the electromagnetic pump signal, the electromagnetic probe signal, and the test signal reference signal recited earlier in the claim or if applicant meant to refer to signals other than the signals referenced above.
Similarly, it is unclear if the signals captured, in use, by the multi-band and multi-channel antenna are meant to refer to the electromagnetic pump signal, the electromagnetic probe signal, and the test signal reference signal recited earlier in the claim or if applicant meant to refer to signals other than the signals referenced above. It is additionally unclear what functionally meaning applicant meant to impart when reciting “captured, in use” in relation to “the signals” and the multi-band and multi-channel antenna. It is not clear what component of “the signals” or entirety of number/number of whole signals of “the signals” are being “used” and by what structure is using, and “using” in what way or effect, the “signals” when they are “captured” by the multi-band and multi-channel antenna.
Additionally, it is unclear the “pump signal” is meant to refer to the electromagnetic pump signal recited earlier in claim 1. It is also unclear if steps are actively being performed for varying the pump signal frequency in discrete sub-bands in the range from 300 MHz to 2800 MHz in order to output a frequency of the electromagnetic probe signal and output a frequency of the test and reference signal which are each respectively equal to half the pump frequency, as there is no active step reciting that any of these functions as actively being performed. Therefore, they have been interpreted to be intended use.
It is also unclear if amplitude of the pump signal lies in the range between 2 Volt per meter (V/m) and 20 V/m is meant to refer to the earlier recited amplitude received and measured by the receiving unit.
Claims 2, 5-12, and 14 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the electromagnetic source unit comprises a free oscillator configured to generate an radiofrequency (RF) signal at fundamental frequency, at an Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band frequency, and harmonics thereof” in lines 1-4, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the free oscillator of the present claim is meant to refer to the a free oscillator of parent claim `1, on which claim 6 is dependent.
It is also unclear what functional meaning applicant meant to impart on the claim when reciting the free oscillator generates an RF signal at “fundamental frequency”, at a UHF band frequency, and “harmonics thereof”, as it is not clear to what “thereof” is meant to be in reference to. It is also unclear to what harmonics applicant is referring to when reciting that the free oscillator generates the RF signal …and “harmonics thereof”. It is unclear if the free oscillator configured to generate an RF signal at alternately at a fundamental frequency, at a UHF band frequency, and/or at second or third harmonics, or if the free oscillator configured to generate an RF signal simultaneously at fundamental frequency, at a UHF band frequency, and harmonics (all harmonics). Applicant is advised to claim appropriate structure that has been configured for performing each of the claimed functions in order to avoid a rejection under 35 USC 101.
Claim 9 is also rejected for reciting the same and/or some of the limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the receiving unit comprises three receiving channels to simultaneously receive a signal transmitted by the probe at a fundamental frequency and at a second and a third harmonic” in lines 1-4, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the signal transmitted by the probe at a fundamental frequency and at a second and a third harmonic of the present claim is meant to refer to the electromagnetic pump signal or the electromagnetic probe signals or the test and reference signal or the phase conjugate signal or the pump signal recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 8 is dependent via claim 7.
Further, it is unclear how a singular signal is able to received at each of the three receiving channels or if applicant meant to recite that each of the three receiving channels each receive a singular signal transmitted by the probe, and if the combined reception of all three receiving channels or the reception at each of the three receiving channels is correspondingly at a fundamental frequency, at a second harmonic, and a third harmonic, respectfully, or if applicant meant that the singular signal transmitted by the probe, is transmitted simultaneously at a fundamental frequency and at both a second harmonic and a third harmonic. Further, it is unclear if the simultaneous receiving a signal transmitted by the probe at a fundamental frequency and at a second and a third harmonic, and if the transmission of a signal by the probe, are required by the claim, as there is no active step reciting for performing the simultaneous receiving, three receiving channels, of a signal transmitted by the probe at a fundamental frequency and at a second and a third harmonic; nor an active step reciting the active transmission of a signal by the probe at a fundamental frequency and at a second and a third harmonic. It appears these limitations are intended use, and accordingly, the limitations have been interpreted as such.
Claims 9-11 and 14 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the signal of an oscillator" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 9 does not prior recite, nor claim 7, on which claim 9 is dependent, recites a signal of an oscillator.
Further, claim 9 recites “a high-speed fibre optic transmitter which draws a part of the signal of an oscillator of the electromagnetic source unit and transmits it in optical fibre” 3-5, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear how the high-speed fibre optic transmitter is configured to “draw” a part of the signal of an oscillator of the electromagnetic source unit and how the high-speed fibre optic transmitter is then configured to transmit “it” in “optical fibre”. Is unclear if “it” that is transmitted refers to the part of the signal of an oscillator of the electromagnetic source unit, and what part of the signal of the oscillator is being referred to and how part of the signal is selected for transmission. It is additionally unclear what applicant meant to recite when reciting that the transmits as being “in optical fibre” and how or if the in optical fibre in which “it” is transmitted is meant to refer to the high-speed fibre optic transmitter recited earlier in the claim. It is unclear if applicant meant to recite an active step of “drawing” part of the signal of the oscillator nor for “transmission” in “optical fibre”, as there is no corresponding active steps being claimed for performing these limitations, therefore it is unclear if these limitations are required by the claim. Accordingly, the limitations have been interpreted as intended use.
Claim 10 recites “wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive signals and correlating them in space and time” in lines 1-3, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear it is unclear if the signals which the receiving unit is configured to receive are meant to refer to any one of, combination of, or the entirety of the electromagnetic pump signal, the electromagnetic probe signal and the test and reference signal recited in parent claim 1 on which claim 10 is dependent. It is also unclear to what applicant refers when reciting “them” in the “correlating…in space and time” and if applicant the signals as being correlated, how the and what subset or combination of or entirety of signals are “correlated” with that variable(s) in space and time.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the distribution” and “the signal received" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11 does not prior recite, nor claim 1, on which claim 11 is dependent, recites a signal received.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the multi-band and multi-channel antenna is configured to operate as a spatial and spectral filter by means of its radiating configuration of an array of independent and decoupled elements and distributed in space for mapping the distribution of the signal received” in lines 1-5, which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what functional meaning applicant meant to impart when reciting that the multi-band and multi-channel antenna is configured to operate “as a spatial and spectral filter by means of its radiating configuration of an array of independent and decoupled elements”, as it is unclear if the “by means” of “its” “radiating configuration…” is meant to refer to a structural configuration of the spatial and spectral filter or the multi-band and multi-channel antenna. It is also unclear to what the “and distributed in space for mapping the distribution of the signal received” is meant to refer, as there is no recitation of what structure is being recited as being “distributed in space” and if applicant meant to actively claim an active step of “mapping” as being performed and if this limitation is required by the claim, as it appears to be intended use, and accordingly will be interpreted as such.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the probe" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 12, nor parent claim 1 prior, recite "a probe".
Further, claim 12 recites “wherein the antenna comprises dipolar elements configured to receive in broadband and to allow measurement of the electromagnetic field generated by the probe and which interacts with an area or an organ of the patient under examination at different points on a surface positioned at a given distance” in lines 1-5, which renders the claim indefinite because unclear what different points on a surface is meant to refer, and if the surface is meant to refer to the patient and in relation to what the “given” distance is determined or set in relation to for the surface. It is also unclear if the area of the patient under examination in the present claim is meant to refer to the biological tissue recited in parent claim 1, on which claim 12 is dependent.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the frequencies received" and "the probe" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13, nor parent claim 12 prior, recite "a frequencies received”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the signals received by each dipolar element to the receiving unit" and "the probe" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 14, nor parent claim 12 prior, recite "a signal received by each dipolar element to be sent to the receiving unit”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiteri et al. (US20080171949, hereafter “Spiteri”), in view of Kiwa et al. (US20120305774, hereafter “Kiwa”)ꝉ, ꝉꝉ , further in view of Botsford et al. (US9610458, hereafter “Botsford”), Scrappy (US5738101), and Subramaniam et al. (US20120035457A1, hereafter “Subramaniam”).
ꝉAs supported by the subject matter known in the art as described by Schiller, “Optical Parametric Oscillators (Continuous Wave)”.
ꝉꝉAs supported by the subject matter known in the art as described by Hao et al., “Optoelectronic parametric oscillator”.
Regarding claim 1, Spiteri discloses an electromedical system (see 100 in FIG. 1) comprising:
an electromagnetic source unit ([0026]-[0027] see electromagnetic signal generating units 12, 22 in FIG. 1);
a receiving unit ([0025]-[0026] see electromagnetic signal analysing units 16,26);
a multi-band and multi-channel antenna ([0025]-[0026] see electromagnetic signal detecting units 14,24, which each respectively detect different portions of the electromagnetic spectrum); and
a processing unit provided with a data processing software ([0028], [0039] see computer 30 in FIG. 1 having a database and performs data evaluation and comparisons/processing);
wherein the electromagnetic source unit is configured to generate and radiate:
an electromagnetic signal that induces a response ([0034]-[0035] signals applied also vary in frequency over time as they are applied to/stimulates the tissue so that analysing the detected signals for the dielectric properties of the tissue portion determined from the detected second electromagnetic signals); and
wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive and analyze an electromagnetic signal generated by the electromagnetic source unit ([0043]-[0044], FIGS. 2A-2E, the optical fibre is configured to transmit and receive optical signals) and configured to be transmitted the receiving unit ([0043]-[0044], [0025]-[0026] the receive optical signals are transmitted the electromagnetic signal analysing units 16,26); but does not explicitly disclose the signal generated by the electromagnetic source unit and configured to be transmitted the receiving unit as being a test and reference signal; nor discloses the electromagnetic source unit as comprising a free oscillator and is configured to generate and radiate: an electromagnetic pump signal; an electromagnetic probe signal; and a test and reference signal; nor wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive and measure in amplitude and phase: the electromagnetic pump signal and the electromagnetic probe signal generated by the electromagnetic source unit and captured*, in use*, by the multi-band and multi-channel antenna; wherein the electromagnetic pump signal is configured to interact with a biological tissue and to cause parametric excitation of the biological tissue; frequencies of the electromagnetic probe signal and the test and reference signal are equal to half the pump signal.
However, in solving the same problem, Kiwa teaches wherein the electromagnetic source unit (see 2, the pulsed laser beam source in FIG. 1) is configured to generate and radiate an electromagnetic pump signal ([0022]-[0023], [0091] the pulsed laser beam into two beams of a probe beam and a pump beam), an electromagnetic probe signal ([0022]-[0023], [0091] the pulsed laser beam into two beams of a probe beam and a pump beam), and a test and reference signal ([0007], [0091] a reference signal a reflected pulsed beam);
wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive and measure in amplitude and phase the electromagnetic pump signal and the electromagnetic probe signal generated by the electromagnetic source unit ([0006] the resultant reference waveform is also subjected to the Fourier transform so as to acquire the amplitude intensity and phase information) and captured*, in use*, by the multi-band and multi-channel antenna ([0123] detecting element 19 is a photoconductive antenna which detects the probe signal and the pump signal), and
the test and reference signal generated by the electromagnetic source unit ([0007], [0091] a reference signal a reflected pulsed beam) and configured to be transmitted the receiving unit ([0113] beam may be transmitted by a femtosecond fiber laser, known in the art of optical lasers to employ optical fibers for laser beam transmission);
wherein the electromagnetic pump signal is configured to interact with a biological tissue and to cause parametric excitation of the biological tissue ([0109], [0118]-[0119], [0128] periodic movement of the oscillator adjusts the length of the probe beam, and the optical chopper chops the pump beam at a predetermined frequency to test and detect interactions for in biological materials, resulting in the electromagnetic wave being generated continuously, which is known in the art of nonlinear optics to refer to a paramedic stimulus, see as supported by pages 51-62 of Schiller), which in particular is comparable to a state of Faraday instability ([0168] see noises which occur due to oscillations in the solution); and
frequencies of the electromagnetic probe signal and the test and reference signal are equal to half the pump signal (abstract, [0119], [0188] the pump beam/signal is chopped/halved with a predetermined desired frequency and the pump beam/signal is divided into one laser beam to reference region corresponding to the reference signal).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Spiteri with the electromagnetic source unit being configured to generate and radiate: an electromagnetic pump signal; an electromagnetic probe signal; and a test and reference signal and the receiving unit being configured to receive and measure in amplitude and phase the signals generated by the electromagnetic source unit and captured, in use, by the multi-band and multi-channel antenna, and the test and reference signal generated by the electromagnetic source unit and configured to be transmitted the receiving unit; wherein the electromagnetic pump signal is configured to interact with a biological tissue and to cause parametric excitation of the biological tissue, frequencies of the electromagnetic probe signal and the test and reference signal are equal to half the pump signal as taught by Kiwa in order to provide for a detection process having high sensitivity and high accuracy (abstract of Kiwa).
Spiteri does not explicitly disclose wherein the electromagnetic source unit is configured so that the pump signal frequency varies in discrete sub-bands in the range from 300 MHz to 2800 MHz.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Botsford teaches wherein the electromagnetic source unit is configured so that the pump signal frequency varies in discrete sub-bands in the range from 300 MHz to 2800 MHz (column 7, lines 19-20, the modulated broadband signal has frequency components[sub-bands] in the range of 100 mhz-3500 mhz).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Spiteri with the electromagnetic source unit being configured so that the pump signal frequency varies in discrete sub-bands in the range from 300 MHz to 2800 MHz as taught by Botsford in order to enhance amplified resonance (column 6, lines 6-8 of Botsford).
Spiteri does not explicitly disclose wherein the biological tissue behaves like a phase-conjugate mirror when subjected to the electromagnetic probe signal; wherein the electromagnetic probe signal strikes the biological tissue, thus, giving rise to a phase conjugate signal; wherein the electromedical system is configured to analyse an electromagnetic interaction interfering between the test and reference signal and the phase conjugate signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sappey teaches wherein the biological tissue behaves like a phase-conjugate mirror when subjected to the electromagnetic probe signal (abstract, column 3, lines 44-47, FIG. 4, the phase-conjugate mirror of the electromagnetic probe signal is generated as a result of the nonlinear polarization produced in the medium generally decays slowly); wherein the electromagnetic probe signal strikes the biological tissue, thus, giving rise to a phase conjugate signal (column 4, lines 43-46, FIG. 2, 4, the pump beam radiation unabsorbed by the biological tissue in the optical cell back into the optical cell, so that the resulting scattered electromagnetic radiation is the phase conjugate of the electromagnetic probe signal applied to/which strikes the biological tissue);
wherein the electromedical system is configured to analyse an electromagnetic interaction interfering between the test and reference signal and the phase conjugate signal (column 2, lines 56-59, column 3, lines 4-20, column 4, lines 18-20 and 61-65, column 6, lines 49-61, claims 1 and 6, the electromagnetic interaction from a femtosecond-pulsed laser is split into a sample beam and a reference beam that has an adjustable optical delay by a Mach-Zehnder interferometer, as the early light retains most of its coherence properties, it interferes with the reference beam light, the electromagnetic interaction interference between sample and reference beams is analyzed to control the length of the transmission window).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Spiteri with the biological tissue behaves like a phase-conjugate mirror when subjected to the electromagnetic probe signal; the electromagnetic probe signal strikes the biological tissue, thus, giving rise to a phase conjugate signal; and the electromedical system is configured to analyse an electromagnetic interaction interfering between the test and reference signal and the phase conjugate signal as taught by Sappey in order to provide an ultrafast correlation time gate to discriminate against light that has undergone multiple scattering (abstract of Sappey).
Spiteri does not explicitly disclose an amplitude of the pump signal lies in the range between 2 Volt per meter (V/m) and 20 V/m.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Subramaniam teaches an amplitude of the pump signal lies in the range between 2 Volt per meter (V/m) and 20 V/m ([0108], [0140] alternating voltage of 7 Vpp was used as the driving voltage, which corresponds to the pump signal as claimed as defined by applicant in [0089] of the PG pub).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Spiteri with the amplitude of the pump signal lies in the range between 2 Volt per meter (V/m) and 20 V/m as taught by Subramaniamin order to provide a direct and immediate indication of differences in EM properties of specimens (abstract of Subramaniam).
Lacking further criticality or unexpected results, the amplitude of the driving voltage function disclosed by Subramaniamin is considered a suitable equivalent to the voltage range of the pump signal of claim 1, as it provides the same end result of producing a signal having amplitude capable of inducing phase shifts.
It should be noted, that the limitations of “wherein the electromagnetic pump signal is configured to interact with a biological tissue and to cause parametric excitation of the biological tissue” , “wherein the biological tissue behaves like a phase-conjugate mirror when subjected to the electromagnetic probe signal”; “wherein the electromagnetic probe signal strikes the biological tissue, thus, giving rise to a phase conjugate signal” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Kiwa, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
It should be noted, that the limitations of “so that the pump signal frequency varies”, “the pump signal frequency varies in discrete sub-bands in the range from 300 MHz to 2800 MHz”, and “the frequencies of the electromagnetic probe signal and the test and reference signal are equal to half the pump frequency” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Kiwa and Botsford, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
It should be noted, that the limitations of “the biological tissue behaves like a phase-conjugate mirror when subjected to the electromagnetic probe signal”, “the electromagnetic probe signal strikes the biological tissue”, “thus, giving rise to a phase conjugate signal”, and “an electromagnetic interaction interfering between the test and reference signal and the phase conjugate signal”, are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Sappey, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
It should be noted, that the limitation of “the amplitude of the pump signal lies in the range between 2 Volt per meter (V/m) and 20 V/m”, is considered a functional limitation of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Subramaniamin, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
*For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean any process and/or function that is performed and/or executed by any functional device or method known in the art of electromagnetic diagnostics capable of “obtaining” signals; and/or the limitation has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean any process and/or function that is performed and/or executed by any functional device or method known in the art of electromagnetic diagnostics capable of both “obtaining” and “using” signals; and/or the limitation has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean any process and/or function that is performed and/or executed by any functional device or method known in the art of electromagnetic diagnostics capable of “obtaining” signals that are being “used” by any process and/or function that is performed and/or executed by any functional device or method known in the art of electromagnetic diagnostics capable of “using” signals in known applied or theoretical sense in the art of electromagnetic diagnostics.
Regarding claim 2, Spiteri, in view of Kiwa, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Spiteri discloses that the signal generated by the electromagnetic source unit is configured to be transmitted to the receiving unit via an optical fibre ([0044], FIGS. 2A-2E, the optical fibre is configured to transmit and receive optical signals); and specifically, Kiwa discloses wherein the test and reference signal generated by the electromagnetic source unit (([0007], [0091] a reference signal a reflected pulsed beam) is configured to be transmitted to the receiving unit via an optical fibre ([0113] beam may be transmitted by a femtosecond fiber laser, known in the art of optical lasers to employ optical fibers for laser beam transmission).
Regarding claim 5, Spiteri, in view of Kiwa, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Kiwa discloses wherein the electromagnetic source unit comprises harmonic generators to generate the electromagnetic pump signal and the electromagnetic probe signal (see as cited [0007], [0022]-[0023], [0091], as known in the art of optical oscillators, that optical parametric oscillator (OPO) is a driven harmonic oscillator, as described in the abstract and pages 1, 6-8 of Hao et al.).
It should be noted, that the limitations of “comprises harmonic generators” and “generate the electromagnetic pump signal and the electromagnetic probe signal” is considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Kiwa, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Regarding claim 6, Spiteri, in view of Kiwa, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Kiwa discloses wherein the electromagnetic source unit comprises a free oscillator ([0110] having an oscillating mirror) configured to generate an RF signal* at a UHF band frequency ([0124] the waves are generated in the range of a range of from 10 ghz to 100 thz, as RF waves are known in the art to be within 3 khz to 300 ghz/3 Hz up to 3 thz, and that ultra high frequency band corresponds to 300 mhz to 3 ghz, which is, in thz, equal to 0.3 to 3 thz, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that radio frequency signals fall within the cited range if Kiwa and the cited range of Kiwa are include of UHF band frequency).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be interpreted in the alternative, requiring the free oscillator configured to generate an RF signal at fundamental frequency; or requiring the free oscillator configured to generate an RF signal* at a UHF band frequency; or requiring the free oscillator configured to generate an RF signal* at harmonics thereof.
Regarding claim 10, Spiteri, in view of Kiwa and Hegg, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Kiwa discloses wherein the receiving unit is configured to receive signals* and correlating them in space and time ([0160] each acquired wave peak position are from the time-domain waveform [time] corresponding to the flow path and reference region [space]).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitation “signals” has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean any signals generated by the electromagnetic source unit and is not limited to one signal or plurality of signals or combination of signals, and/or any other signals known in the art that may be received by any structure as known in the art of electromagnetic diagnostics.
Regarding claim 12, Spiteri, in view of Kiwa, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Kiwa discloses wherein the antenna comprises dipolar elements configured to receive in broadband ([0004] the electromagnetic wave has or includes components in a wide frequency domain) and to allow measurement of an electromagnetic field generated by the probe (8) (abstract, measuring the electromagnetic fields generated) and which interacts with an area or an organ of the patient under examination at different points on a surface positioned at a given distance (abstract, [0096], [0101]-[0106] see process of detection at different points/positions).
It should be noted, that the limitations of “to allow measurement of an electromagnetic field”, “an electromagnetic field generated by the probe” and “which interacts with an area or an organ of the patient under examination at different points on a surface positioned at a given distance” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Kiwa, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Regarding claim 13, Spiteri, in view of Kiwa, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Kiwa discloses wherein the dipole elements* are active elements (abstract, [0005], [0095], [0102] the change of the electric charge on the dielectrics [dipole elements] causes a change in the local electric field E in the depletion layer formed at the boundary between the insulator 22 and the semiconductor 23, the amplitude strength of the electromagnetic wave proportional to the local electric charge E which also changes).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitation has been interpreted in the alternative, requiring the dipole elements are passive broadband elements; or requiring the dipole elements are elements resonating at one of a plurality of frequencies received; requiring the dipole elements are or active elements.
Regarding claim 14, Spiteri, in view of Kiwa, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Kiwa discloses further comprising a high-insulation radiofrequency switching device configured ([0014], [0020], [0037, [0048] the detection device includes a semiconductor and an insulator formed on the semiconductor) to send the signals* received by each dipolar element to the receiving unit (3) ([0091], [0095], [0100]-[0102], [0126] each element of the detector is formed to include the insulator).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the signals” has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean any signals generated by the electromagnetic source unit and is not limited to one signal or plurality of signals or combination of signals, and/or any other signals known in the art that may be received by dipole elements.
It should be noted, that the limitations of “to send the signals”, “the signals received by each dipolar element”, and “to the receiving unit” is considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Kiwa, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Claim(s) 7-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Spiteri, in view of Kiwa, Botsford, Sappey, and Subramaniam, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hegg et al. (US20100222775, hereafter “Hegg”).
Regarding claim 7, Spiteri substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Spiteri discloses that the device as being used under manual control (see [0080]), but does not explicitly disclose comprising a probe in which the electromagnetic source unit is contained; wherein the probe is configured to be hand-held and used for scanning an area of the biological tissue under examination.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hegg teaches comprising a probe in which the electromagnetic source unit is contained (see system 100 in FIGS. 1A-2B, probe 102); wherein the probe is configured so as to be hand-held ([0089, FIGS. 1A-2B, which may be a transcutaneous detectors 102 a, or a opthalmoscope 102b, which are known in the art to be hand held) and used for scanning an area under examination ([0204]-[0206], FIG. 2B, see probe is scanning the patient’s eye 220 under investigation).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system disclosed by Spiteri with the probe in which the electromagnetic source unit is contained; and the probe being configured to be hand-held and used for scanning an area of the biological tissue under examination as taught by Hegg in order to provide a spatially patterned optical energy stimulus having a desired peak emission wavelength directed toward the desired target ([0099] of Hegg).
It should be noted, that the limitations of “to be hand-held” and “used for scanning an area of the biological under examination” are considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Kiwa and Hegg, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Regarding claim 8, Spiteri, in view of Hegg, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Hegg discloses wherein the receiving unit comprises three receiving channels ([0099] one or more receivers has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to be inclusive of three receiving channels) to simultaneously receive ([0258] various operations may include simultaneous orderings of operations) a signal* transmitted by the probe at a fundamental frequency ([0108] variables describing the electromagnetic radiation include the fundamental wavelength, fundamental frequency, and the like) and at a second and a third harmonic ([0109] second harmonic generation, third harmonic generation).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitation “a signal” has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean any signals generated by the electromagnetic source unit and is not limited to one signal or plurality of signals or combination of signals, and/or any other signals known in the art that may be transmitted by the probe.
It should be noted, that the limitations of “simultaneously receive a signal”, “a signal transmitted by the probe” and “transmitted by the probe at a fundamental frequency and at a second and a third harmonic” is considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Kiwa and Hegg, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Regarding claim 9, Spiteri, in view of Hegg, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Hegg discloses wherein the probe also comprises power-supply ([0195] power supply sources 700) and control circuits ([0202] control circuitry 208) and a high-speed fibre optic transmitter (19) ([0140] electromagnetic transmission sources include an optical fiber) which draws a part of the signal* of an oscillator of the electromagnetic source unit (2) ([0169], [0192] transmitter includes oscillation) and transmits it in optical fibre ([0132] treatment occurs in vivo by transmission via optical fiber).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the signal” has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean any signals generated by the electromagnetic source unit and is not limited to one signal or plurality of signals or combination of signals, and/or any other signals known in the art that may be of an oscillator of an electromagnetic source unit.
It should be noted, that the limitations of “draws a part of the signal of an oscillator” and “transmits it in optical fibre” is considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Kiwa and Hegg, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
Regarding claim 11, Spiteri substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the multi-band and multi-channel antenna is configured to operate as a spatial and spectral filter by means of its radiating configuration of an array of independent and decoupled elements and distributed in space for mapping a distribution of the signal received.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Hegg teaches the multi-band and multi-channel antenna is configured to operate as a spatial and spectral filter ([0134], [0139] filters) by means of its radiating configuration of an array of independent and decoupled elements ([0093], [0134] the treatment device can take a variety of forms including a one-, two-, or three-dimensional arrays which may be phased array antennas [known in the art for elements of the array operate independently from other elements in the array) and distributed in space for mapping a distribution of the signal* received ([0143] using signals received to determine a location of interest).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed by Spiteri with the multi-band and multi-channel antenna being configured to operate as a spatial and spectral filter by means of its radiating configuration of an array of independent and decoupled elements and distributed in space for mapping a distribution of the signal received as taught by Hegg in in order to provide a spatially patterned optical energy stimulus having a desired peak emission wavelength directed toward the desired target ([0099] of Hegg).
*For the purposes of examination, the limitation “the signal” has been interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation to mean any signals generated by the electromagnetic source unit and is not limited to one signal or plurality of signals or combination of signals, and/or any other signals known in the art that may be received by any structure as known in the art of electromagnetic diagnostics.
It should be noted, that the limitations of “to operate as a spatial and spectral filter”, “operate…by means of its radiating configuration of an array of independent and decoupled elements”, “distributed in space”, and “mapping a distribution of the signal received” is considered functional limitations of the device; the manner of operating the device does not differentiate an apparatus/device claim from the prior art; See "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Therefore, the device of Spiteri, as modified by Kiwa and Hegg, would be capable of performing all the functions as recited.
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 AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM MST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights