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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 made in the supplemental response filed 21 July 2026. Claims 1 and 5-6 remain pending in the application. Claims 2-4 are cancelled.
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 translate and/or rotate about the sample to acquire 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 Hedegaard et al. (US 2022/0160233 A1, of record), hereinafter Hedegaard, in view of Zhou et al. (CN 110286117 A, of record), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 1, Hedegaard teaches a non-invasive method (paragraph 0001, 0011, 0022, 0043-0050) for three-dimensional molecular imaging (abstract, paragraph 0011) of a sample through coherent excitation (paragraph 0076), the method comprising:
providing an external three-dimensional imaging system configured to surround the sample or to rotate about the sample (see Fig. 1 and 3A-4 Raman-CT system 1, paragraph 0076; see also Fig. 11);
irradiating the sample at a plurality of points from a single coherent light source (see paragraphs 0076, 0083, and Fig. 3A; laser light goes through a beam expander to irradiate the sample at a plurality of points) to obtain a plurality of Raman scattered light from the sample (paragraphs 0046-0048, 0076-0077);
collecting the plurality of Raman scattered light (paragraphs 0046-0048, 0076-0077) with a collection arrangement (Fig. 1 optical receiving part 30 having plurality of optical guide means 37, and paragraphs 0077, 0087) configured to translate and/or rotate about the sample (see Fig. 1, 3B, and 4, and paragraphs 0076, 0085-0087) to acquire a plurality of Raman profiles by translation and/or rotation about the sample (paragraphs 0076-0077, 0085-0087);
resolving the plurality of Raman profiles with a vertical resolution of about 1 µm (paragraph 0019 “having a sub-centimetre spatial resolution, such as sub-millimetre resolution, such as resolution of several hundreds of micrometres, such as resolution of one, or more, tens of micrometres, including corresponding spectral information”) and an angular resolution (paragraph 0079) to obtain a three-dimensional image of the sample (paragraphs 0048-0050, 0087-0109); and
generating, from multidimensional Raman spectra (paragraphs 0047-0050), the three-dimensional image including molecular structural information of the sample (paragraphs 0078, 0087, 0109).
Hedegaard teaches that the plurality of Raman profiles are resolved with an angular resolution corresponding to each step angle of θ (paragraphs 0078-0080, 0087-0109), but does not teach resolving with an angular resolution of about 0.1°.
However, Hedegaard teaches that a smaller degree of step size of the rotational angle of the imaging unit yields a higher resolution image (see paragraph 0111 and Fig. 10 comparing images produced by different rotational angle step sizes). While Hedegaard teaches smaller rotational step sizes increase measurement time, other rotational step sizes can be used to achieve a desired spatial resolution (paragraphs 0078, 0111). Thus, the angular resolution used to resolve a plurality of Raman profiles in the method of Hedegaard is a result-effective variable, in that, if the angular resolution is too large, the spatial resolution of the reconstructed 3D images of the sample will be lower, yielding a lower quality image (e.g. see Fig. 10, paragraph 0111).
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 Hedegaard to have the angular resolution at which the plurality of Raman profiles are resolved be about 0.1°, since determining the optimum angular degree of resolution to ensure that 3D images are reconstructed with a spatial resolution sufficient enough to yield high quality images is based on a result-effective variable, 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, Hedegaard does not teach the sample is imaged with 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 to image a sample (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 Hedegaard 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, Hedegaard, 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 Hedegaard Fig. 3A-3B showing at least one light guiding element being rotated/moved such that it captures Raman light that scatters at different angles/points from the point and angle of the incident beam).
Regarding claim 6, Hedegaard, 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 (Hedegaard: paragraphs 0040, 0112, 0120).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cheng (US 2014/0200434 A1) relates to vibrational photoacoustic tomography using a Raman laser and a detector assembly that rotates around a sample to collect scattered light.
Demers et al. (Demers, Jennifer-Lynn H., et al. "Next-generation Raman tomography instrument for non-invasive in vivo bone imaging." Biomedical optics express 6.3 (2015): 793-806.) relates to a 3D Raman imaging technique using a plurality of emission and receiving fibers to surround a sample under test.
Zavaleta et al. (US 2018/0164217 A1) relates to Raman tomography systems and methods using Raman probes that surround a rotating sample.
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 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