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 .
Claims 1-23 are pending.
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. In this case, the listing of the references in the specification are found on pages 7-12, see [0031] to [0084].
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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites the limitation "the plural wire elements" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by OGAWA (US 2016/0125766 A1).
Re: 1. Ogawa teaches of a method for forming a phantom for an optoacoustic probe comprising: forming a scattering material (see TiO2 and base material, see [0098]); forming an absorbing material (see carbon black, see [0097]); mixing the scattering material with the absorbing material to form a tissue material mixing the tissue material with a urethane solution to form a phantom material; and curing the phantom material to form the phantom (see the providing light absorbing compounds and a compound having light scattering properties that were dispersed in a beaker and stirring them, and heating at 90° C. for 1 hour to be cured thereby obtaining a blood model test piece, see paragraphs [0095], [0099] in OGAWA).
OGAWA does not specifically state of mixing the tissue material with a urethane solution to form a phantom material.
However, this can be seen as implied in the disclosure of OGAWA that states of curing agent being added to the polyol, stirred, and then the pouring of the polyurethane gel mixed solution into a mold (see paragraph [0099] in OGAWA).
Whereby, the teaching of Ogawa includes the inherent mixing particularly in light of the curing agent added and stirred to the solution which would imply mixing and this would encompass the claimed mixing step.
Re: 2 (upon 1), wherein the scattering material include TiO2 and a base material.
The features of claims 2, and 3 are encompassed in the disclosure of OGAWA such as the compound having light scattering properties, titanium oxide in polyol (see paragraph [0098] in OGAWA).
Re: 3 (upon 2), wherein the base material is mineral oil (see polyol of OGAWA which encompasses the claimed mineral oil).
The features of claim 5 is in the disclosure of OGAWA that in the light absorbing compounds, with wavelengths of 600 nm or more and 1100 nm or less are different from each other (see paragraph [0024] in OGAWA).
Re: 5 (upon 1), further comprising determining whether the tissue material absorbs light related to a range of wavelengths. (see OGAWA teaching above.)
The features of claims 21, 22 are taught in the disclosure of OGAWA that carbon black and titanium oxide were dispersed in polyol (see paragraphs [0095]-[0098] in OGAWA, see also teaching of determining the transmittance and reflectance of the cell, [0120]).
Re: 21 (upon 1) wherein the scattering material includes a base material with a reflective material that is suspended within the base material. (see teaching by OGAWA of the material dispersed in the base material above)
Re: 22 (upon 1), wherein the absorbing material includes a base material with an absorbing material that is suspended with the base material. (see teaching by OGAWA of the material dispersed in the base material above)
Re: 23 (upon 1), wherein the tissue material has optical properties that replicate optical properties of tissue of a body part. (see also teaching by OGAWA in [0065] for replication for a photoacoustic blood model, and also [0099].)
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA (US 20160125766 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above.
The features of claims 5, and 6 are in the disclosure of OGAWA that in the light absorbing compounds, with wavelengths of 600 nm or more and 1100 nm or less are different from each other (see paragraph [0024] in OGAWA).
Re: 6 (upon 5), wherein the range of wavelengths is at least one of between 740nm and 770nm, or 1050nm-1070nm. Overlapping ranges taught by OGAWA, although the reference does not explicitly state the claimed range, there is an overlapping ranges taught in the reference and the claimed range. Here, regarding the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I).
Re: 7 (upon 5), wherein either one of additional scattering material or additional absorbing material is mixed with the tissue material based on determining whether the tissue material absorbs light related to the range of wavelengths.
The feature of claim 7 are in the disclosure of OGAWA such as by controlling the content concentration of the light absorbing compounds A, B, C, ... in which the absorption coefficient ratios at the wavelengths U and t,2 are different from each other in the blood models (see paragraph [0033] in OGAWA). Here, the claimed features is interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art as being encompassed by the teachings of OGAWA.
Re: 8 (upon 1), wherein the curing of the phantom material to form the phantom occurs at a temperature in a range of between 65°-75°F.
The features of claim 8 of the disclosure of OGAWA that polyurethane gel mixed solution thus prepared was poured into a mold, and then heated at 90° C. for 1 hour to be cured (see paragraph [0099] in OGAWA). Wherein, the claimed temperature range is noted but one skilled in the art would recognize in modifying the temperature for the desired curing features dependent upon the time and the different materials.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of YAMAZOE (US 4843247 A).
Re: 4 (upon 1), wherein the absorbing material includes carbon black with asphaltine and a base material.
The OGAWA reference does not specifically teach of the asphaltine.
It is noted by the Examiner that the asphaltine appears to be an alternate spelling of asphaltene.
The feature of the absorbing material of carbon black of claim 4 can be seen in the disclosure of OGAWA that as the light absorbing compound, carbon black and copper phthalocyanine (maximum absorption wavelength of 721 nm) were used (see paragraph [0097] in OGAWA). Meanwhile, the disclosure of YAMAZOE of the asphaltene particles which are prepared from a sample oil to be determined at two wavelengths selected from a visible light region of from 500 to 1,000 nm (see claim 1 in YAMAZOE) and also abstract wherein the absorbances are dispersed therein asphaltene particles. In this case, the properties of asphaltene are known in the art and readily applicable to the use in the OGAWA reference.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified OGAWA with the use of asphaltine as taught by YAMAZOE for additional use of alternate known absorbing materials in the sample. This is seen under KSR, MPEP 2143 of applying a known technique (asphaltene particles of YAMAZOE) to a known device (method or product, regarding the absorbing material of OGAWA) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of VOGT (US 20170122915 A1).
Re: 9 (upon 1), wherein prior to mixing the tissue material with the urethane solution to form the phantom material includes sonification of tissue material.
While OGAWA does not specifically state sonification, the additional feature of claim 9 is known as seen in the disclosure of VOGT that after mixing the PVC solution, TiO2 was added to a 40 mL volume of stock solution, which was sonicated at 40° C. (see paragraph [0263] in VOGT).
Wherein, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified OGAWA with the sonification step as taught by VOGT for additional processing of the mixture to form the phantom.
Claim(s) 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of NAUM (US 2008/0190169 A1).
Re: 10 (upon 1), further comprising, placing the phantom material in a mold; and arranging one or more targets within the phantom material within the mold.
Here, the features of claims 10 of the disclosure of OGAWA that a polyurethane gel mixed solution thus prepared was poured into a mold (see paragraph [0099] in OGAWA). OGAWA does not specifically state targets in the main body of the specification..
Wherein, from the teaching of molding in OGAWA and of measuring targets in the background art of OGAWA, see [0002], and further, phantoms can include targets as taught by NAUM, see [0007] for test target scatterers.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified OGAWA with the targets in the phantoms as taught by NAUM as these re known test scatterers.
The features of claims 11, 12 are merely variations of the disclosure of OGAWA that blood models (12a-12d) serving as simulated tumors are disposed in a phantom base material (11) (see paragraph [0078] and figure 1 in OGAWA). See also NAUM regarding targets that can include threads, rods, spheres, cones, thin nylon wires, other targets such as simulated cysts, see [0007].
Re: 11 (upon 10), wherein the one or more targets include plural wire elements. (See NAUM regarding wires.)
Re: 12 (upon 10), wherein the plural wire elements include a black wire element, red wire element, green wire element, and a clear wire element. (This is a variation as NAUM already teaches of wires, the additional different colored wires are noted as variation of the different target teachings.)
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA (US 20160125766 A1) in view of YAMAZOE (US 4843247 A)
Re: 13 (upon. A method for forming a phantom for an optoacoustic probe comprising: forming a scattering material that includes TiO2 and a base material; forming an absorbing material that includes carbon black with asphaltine and a base material; mixing the scattering material with the absorbing material to form a tissue material; mixing the tissue material with a urethane solution to form a phantom material; and curing the phantom material to form the phantom. (Wherein, the claim being a combination of claims 1, 2, and 4).
OGAWA does not specifically state in forming a scattering material that includes TiO2 and a base material; forming an absorbing material that includes carbon black with asphaltine and a base material; and mixing the tissue material with a urethane solution to form a phantom material. OGAWA discloses a method comprising: stirring light absorbing compounds and a compound having light scattering properties (see paragraph [0095] in OGAWA) and heating at 90° C. for 1 hour to be cured thereby obtaining a blood model test piece (see paragraph [0099] in OGAWA).
However, said differences are variations of the disclosure of OGAWA such as providing light absorbing compounds having carbon black and a compound, see also [0042, 0043, 0044] that teaches of different pigments having light scattering properties having titanium oxide in polyol and stirring them (see paragraph [0095] in OGAWA), and pouring the polyurethane gel mixed solution into a mold (see paragraph [0099] in OGAWA) and the disclosure of YAMAZOE such as asphaltene particles which are prepared from a sample oil to be determined at two wavelengths selected from a visible light region of from 500 to 1,000 nm (see claim 1 in YAMAZOE).
Whereby, see teaching above, and further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified OGAWA with the use of asphaltine as taught by YAMAZOE for additional use of alternate known absorbing materials in the sample. This is seen under KSR, MPEP 2143 of applying a known technique (asphaltene particles of YAMAZOE) to a known device (method or product, regarding the absorbing material of OGAWA) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Re: 14 (upon 13), wherein the base material is mineral oil. (see teaching of claim 3 above)
Re: 15 (upon 13), further comprising determining whether the tissue material absorbs light related to a range of wavelengths including at least one of between 740nm and 770nm, or 1050nm-1070nm. (see teaching of claims 5 and 6 above)
Re: 16 (upon 13), wherein the curing of the phantom material to form the phantom occurs at a temperature in a range of between 65°-75°F. (see teaching of claim 8 above)
Re: 17 (upon 13), further comprising, placing the phantom material in a mold; and arranging one or more targets within the phantom material within the mold. (see teaching of claim 10 above)
Claim(s) 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over OGAWA (US 20160125766 A1) in view of YAMAZOE (US 4843247 A) and VOGT (US 20170122915 A1).
Re: 18, A method for forming a phantom for an optoacoustic probe comprising: forming a scattering material that includes TiO2 and mineral oil; forming an absorbing material that includes carbon black with asphaltine and mineral oil; mixing the scattering material with the absorbing material to form a tissue material; storing the tissue material; performing sonification of the tissue material; mixing the tissue material with a urethane solution to form a phantom material; and curing the phantom material to form the phantom. (Wherein the claim is a combination of claims 1-4 and 9 above)
OGAWA does not specifically state of forming a scattering material that includes Tio2 and mineral oil; forming an absorbing material that includes carbon black with asphaltine and mineral oil; performing sonification of the tissue material; and mixing the tissue material with a urethane solution to form a phantom material.
However, said differences can be seen as variations of the teachings from the disclosure of OGAWA such as providing light absorbing compounds having carbon black and a compound having light scattering properties having titanium oxide in polyol and stirring them (see paragraph [0095] in OGAWA), and pouring the polyurethane gel mixed solution into a mold (see paragraph [0099] in OGAWA), and the disclosure of YAMAZOE such as asphaltene particles which are prepared from a sample oil to be determined at two wavelengths selected from a visible light region of from 500 to 1,000 nm (see claim 1 in YAMAZOE) and the disclosure of VOGT that after mixing a PVC solution, TiO2 was added to a 40 mL volume of stock solution, which was sonicated at 40° C (see paragraph [0263] and figure 3 in VOGT).
Whereby, see teaching above, and further, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified OGAWA with the use of asphaltine as taught by YAMAZOE for additional use of alternate known absorbing materials in the sample and further of the sonification step as taught by VOGT for additional processing of the mixture to form the phantom.. This is seen under KSR, MPEP 2143 of applying a known technique (asphaltene particles of YAMAZOE) to a known device (method or product, regarding the absorbing material of OGAWA) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Re: 19 (upon 18), further comprising determining whether the tissue material absorbs light related to a range of wavelengths. (see teaching of claim 5 above)
Re: 20 (upon 19), wherein the range of wavelengths is at least one of between 740nm and 770nm, or 1050nm-1070nm. (see teaching of claim 6 above)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, of particular note:
FUKUTANI US 2012/0183190 A1 teaches of black rubber wire in a phantom [0098] as a light absorber.
MANDELIS US 2013/0102865 A1 teaches of phantoms, and further of optical contrast heterogeneities (wires), see [0157], and of three wires [0041, 0158].
HASHIZUME US 2017/0188837 A1 teaches of a phantom.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744