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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 31 March 2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1 and 5. Claims 1 and 5-6 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 17 December 2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 5-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a collection arrangement configured to obtain a plurality of Raman profiles by translation and/or rotation about the sample” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perelman et al. (WO 96/26431 A1), hereinafter Perelman, in view of Zhou et al. (CN 110286117 A, of record), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 1, Perelman teaches a method for three dimensional molecular imaging (abstract, pg. 4 lines 17-23, pg. 26 lines 12-17) through coherent excitation of a sample (Fig. 1A sapphire laser 10, sample 16; pg. 8 line 17-pg. 9 line 9), the method comprising:
irradiating the sample at a plurality of points with a single coherent light source (Fig. 1 sapphire laser 10, pg. 8 line 17-pg. 9 line 9; see also abstract, pg. 6 lines 5-9 discuss the laser being used to scan the surface of the sample, thus meaning the sample is irradiated in a plurality of points) to obtain a plurality of Raman scattered light from around the sample (pg. 3 lines 14-31, pg. 4 line 17-pg. 5 line 17, pg. 15 line 27-pg. 16 line 28, Fig. 1B);
collecting the plurality of Raman scattered light with a collection arrangement (Fig. 1A-B and Fig. 15A-C cylinders 50, 70, 80; pg. 9 lines 10-30, pg. 26 line 6-pg. 27 line 23) configured to obtain a plurality of Raman profiles (pg. 4 lines 17-23, claims 1 and 11) by translation and/or rotation about the sample (pg. 26 line 6-pg. 27 line 23); and
resolving the plurality of Raman profiles to obtain a three dimensional image of the sample (abstract, pg. 4 lines 17-23, pg. 9 lines 10-30, pg. 26 line 6-pg. 27 line 23).
Perelman does not teach resolving the plurality of Raman profiles with a vertical resolution of 1 µm and an angular resolution of 0.1° to obtain a three dimensional image of the sample (emphasis added via bolded words).
However, Perelman teaches that a desired spatial and depth resolution can be obtained depending on the system utilized (see pg. 3 line 33-pg. 4 line 10, pg. 5 lines 3-34, pg. 15 line 27-pg. 16 line 33; it is the examiner’s position that the spatial and/or depth resolution of Perelman refers to a vertical resolution), and a desired angular resolution can be achieved through the rotation of the collection arrangement (pg. 26 line 6-pg. 27 line 23).
Thus, the vertical resolution and angular resolution utilized in method of Perelman are result-effective variable, in that, if the vertical and angular resolutions are too low, then the method of Perelman cannot produce images having a sufficient enough resolution for medical imaging (see Perelman pg. 2 lines 6-20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method of Perelman to resolve the plurality of Raman profiles with a vertical resolution of 1 µm and an angular resolution of 0.1° to obtain the three dimensional image of the sample, since determining the optimum vertical and angular resolutions to ensure that an imaging quality sufficient for medical imaging is achieved are based on a result-effective variables, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Yet remaining, Perelman does not teach the use of homogenized coherent excitation from a single homogenized coherent light source.
Zhou, which relates to imaging with Raman scattered light, teaches the use of homogenized coherent excitation from a single homogenized coherent light source (Zhou: abstract, paragraph 0017, 0028, 0031, 0037; the assembly of Zhou provides a coherent source (laser) and a fly's-eye lens for homogenization).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the method Perelman to use homogenized coherent excitation from a single homogenized coherent light source, as taught by Zhou, for the benefit of reducing the energy density of the transmitted light, which improves the detection of various samples (see Zhou paragraph 0028, 0031).
Regarding claim 5, Perelman, as modified by Zhou, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches an angle of collecting the plurality of Raman scattered light is independent of a point and an angle of illumination (see Perelman Fig. 1B and Fig. 15A-C showing the collection angle of the cylinders comprising optical fibers are independent of the angle and point of illumination; pg. 26 line 6-pg. 27 line 23).
Regarding claim 6, Perelman, as modified by Zhou, teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the sample is selected from a list consisting of chemical contaminants, tissue contaminants, modified tissues, degenerated tissues, tumors and objects capable of providing a chemical signature (see Perelman pg. 3 line 3-pg. 5 line 5).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights