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
The amendment filed has 10/20/2025 been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (Kim, J., Kim, J.Y., Jeon, S. et al. Super-resolution localization photoacoustic microscopy using intrinsic red blood cells as contrast absorbers. Light Sci Appl 8, 103 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41377-019-0220-4) in view of Yavas (Seydi Yavas, Esra Aytac-Kipergil, Mustafa U. Arabul, Hakan Erkol, Onder Akcaalan, Y. Burak Eldeniz, F. Omer Ilday, Mehmet B. Unlu, "A novel fiber laser development for photoacoustic microscopy," Proc. SPIE 8581, Photons Plus Ultrasound: Imaging and Sensing 2013, 85813S (4 March 2013); https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2004910), and Hu (Song Hu, Konstantin Maslov, and Lihong V. Wang, "Second-generation optical-resolution photoacoustic microscopy with improved sensitivity and speed," Opt. Lett. 36, 1134-1136 (2011)).
Regarding claim 1, Kim teaches a reflection-mode, ultra-high-speed, multi-parametric photoacoustic microscopy (PAM) system, comprising:
a. a high-repetition-rate pulsed laser (page 3, column 1, paragraph 2);
b. a high-speed resonant galvanometer (Fig. 1, GS) configured to scan the laser pulses in an optical scanning pattern (page 8, column 1, paragraph 2 discloses the galvanometer scans a linear scanning pattern);
c. a cylindrically focused transducer configured to detect photoacoustic signals produced by a sample in response to the laser pulses (Fig. 1 shows a cylindrical transducer, UT; page 9, 2nd column, end of paragraph 1 discloses the exact transducer used, v214-BC-RM, Olympus NDT, which is a cylindrical transducer according to manufacturer's website); and
d. an optical-acoustic combiner (OAC) (Fig. 1b, OAC) configured to reflect the laser pulses into the sample and to transmit the photoacoustic signals to the transducer (page 3, 2nd column discloses the combiner was used to align the optical beams and the photoacoustic signals; page 9, 2nd column discloses the combiner is used to direct the beam to the sample and the photoacoustic signal to the transducer).
Kim fails to the laser optically coupled to an acousto-optic modulator (AOM) configured to produce laser pulses at first and second pulse wavelengths at a modulation rate of at least 1 MHz.
However, in the same field of endeavor of photoacoustic microscopy systems, Yavas teaches a pulsed laser coupled to an acousto-optic modulator capable of achieving a repetition rate of at least 1 MHz (abstract; last paragraph of 'Introduction').
It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the device of Kim with the AOM taught in Yavas as the AOM allows complete control over the pulse train, including frequency, intensity and direction of the laser beam pulses (first paragraph of 'Experiment Setup').
Yavas fails to teach the laser is configured to produce laser pulses at first and second pulse wavelengths.
However, in the same field of endeavor of PAM systems, Hu teaches a PAM system with a pulsed laser which is capable of dual measurements (Fig. 5 - 561 nm and 570 nm; page 1136, 1st column, 2nd paragraph).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the pulsed laser taught in Kim as modified by Yavas with the dual wavelengths taught in Hu because multiple wavelengths allow more image detail and depth to be achieved (Hu: Fig. 5 shows the ear vasculature down to the capillary level - page 1136, 1st column, 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Yavas and Hu teaches the system as explained above in claim 1, and Kim further teaches the OAC comprises a base layer (Kim: page 9, 2nd column discloses the OAC consists of multiple layers, including an acoustic lens and prism (base)), a reflecting layer formed on the base layer (page 9, 2nd column, aluminum coating), and a protective layer formed on the reflecting layer opposite the base layer (page 9, 2nd column, an uncoated prism (protective)).
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Yavas and Hu teaches the system as explained above in claim 1, and Kim further teaches the photoacoustic signals are ultrasound pulses (Kim: page 1, 1st column, 1st paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Yavas and Hu teaches the system as explained above in claim 2, but Kim fails to teach the base layer is acoustically matched to a coupling medium configured to acoustically couple the sample to the transducer.
However, Hu teaches an acoustic-optical combiner whose base layer (an acoustic lens) is submerged in water for acoustic coupling to the transducer (Hu: page 1134, end of 2nd column - page 1135, beginning of 1st column).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the system of Kim with acoustic coupling taught in Hu because it enhances the detection sensitivity (Hu: page 1134, end of 2nd column).
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Yavas and Hu teaches the system as explained above in claim 4, but Kim fails to teach the coupling medium is water.
However, Hu teaches an acoustic-optical combiner whose base layer (an acoustic lens) is submerged in water for acoustic coupling to the transducer (Hu: page 1134, end of 2nd column - page 1135, beginning of 1st column).
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the system of Kim with water being used for acoustic coupling taught in Hu because it enhances the detection sensitivity (Hu: page 1134, end of 2nd column).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Yavas and Hu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Smith (US 20200340954 A1) and Nand (Nand, M., Babita, Jena, S., Tokas, R. B., Rajput, P., Mukharjee, C., ... & Sahoo, N. K. (2016, May). Development of high damage threshold multilayer thin film beam combiner for laser application. In AIP Conference Proceedings (Vol. 1731, No. 1, p. 080051). AIP Publishing LLC.).
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Yavas and Hu teaches the system as explained above in claim 2, but Kim fails to teach the base layer comprises acrylic with a density of about 1.18 g/cm3, an acoustic velocity of about 2.8x103 m/s, and a thickness of about 100 μm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of photoacoustic microscopy, Smith teaches a combiner with a support member (Fig. 4B, 150) that can be glass or any transparent material (paragraph [0041]). Acrylic would be an optically transparent material, and a density of 1.18 g/cm3 and acoustic velocity of 2.8x103 m/s are common physical properties of acrylic, thus any sort of acrylic layer would anticipate this part of the claim.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to combine the system taught by Kim in view of Yavas and Hu with the use of an acrylic (transparent) layer taught in Smith because an optically transparent layer is widely used in the art to allow visualization of the sample (Smith: paragraph [0039]).
Smith does not disclose the thickness of this layer.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beam combiners, Nand teaches a beam combiner consisting of multiple thin layers (title; 'Introduction', paragraph 1; 'Experimental Details', paragraph 1). Nand does not specify the thickness of the layers used, however there is nothing in the present application to suggest the exact thickness of 100 μm is anything more than an aesthetic choice. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that any thin layer would anticipate this part of the claim.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the transparent layer taught in Smith with the thinness taught in in Nand because a thin-film combiner improves optical performance (Nand: 'Introduction', paragraph 1).
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Yavas and Hu as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Nand.
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Yavas and Hu teaches the system as explained above in claim 2, and Kim further teaches wherein the reflecting layer comprise a thickness (Kim: page 9, second column reveals aluminum coated prism is a Thorlabs MRA10-G01. Reflective layer is 450nm according to manufacturer's website. The examiner is estimating the ultrasonic wavelength in soft tissue to be 2 mm.) much less than an ultrasonic wavelength of the photoacoustic signals.
Kim, Yavas and Hu do not teach the protective layers comprise a much less than an ultrasonic wavelength of the photoacoustic signals.
However, in the same field of endeavor of beam combiners, Nand teaches a beam combiner consisting of multiple thin layers (title; 'Introduction', paragraph 1; 'Experimental Details', paragraph 1). It is the position of the examiner that these thin layers would be less than an ultrasonic wavelength.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the protective layer taught in Kim as modified by Yavas and Hu with the thin film layer taught in Nand because a thin-film combiner is known to improve optical performance (Nand: 'Introduction', paragraph 1).
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Yavas, Hu, and Nand teaches the system as explained above in claim 7, but Kim fails to teach the protective layer comprises SiO2 with a thickness of about 190 nm.
However, Nand teaches a beam combiner with a thin layer of SiO2 (silica, ‘Introduction’, paragraph 1).
Nand does not specify the thickness of the layers used, however there is nothing in the present application to suggest the exact thickness of 190 nm is anything more than an aesthetic choice. Therefore, it is the position of the examiner that the thin layer in Nand is less than the ultrasonic wavelength and thus would anticipate this part of the claim.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention would find it obvious to modify the protective layer taught in Kim with the thin silica layer taught in Nand as silica is widely used in optical devices due to its ability to resist laser damage (Nand: 'Introduction', paragraph 1) and a thin-film combiner is known to improve optical performance (Nand: 'Introduction', paragraph 1).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, Yavas, Hu, and Nand as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Thorlabs (https://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=905&pn=MRA10-G01).
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Yavas, Hu, and Nand teaches the system as explained above in claim 7, but Kim fails to teach the reflecting layer comprises aluminum with a thickness of about 250 nm.
However, Kim teaches the layer with an aluminum coating is a Thorlabs MRA10-G01 (page 9, second column). According to the manufacturer's website, the aluminum thickness is 450 nm.
Thorlabs also makes prisms of the exact size dimensions (11 mm x 14.1 mm) with an aluminum layer thickness of 250 nm (Thorlabs: MRA10-F01, see table under "Specs" tab). Thorlabs further teaches recommendations on which aluminum coating to use depending on the wavelength of the laser beam being used (Thorlabs: see graphs under "Graphs" tab).
A person having ordinary skill in the art would be able to substitute one aluminum coated prism with another one of the exact size dimensions but different coating thickness if a different wavelength laser was needed and obtain the predictable result of reflecting the laser beam towards a sample.
A person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to substitute the aluminum coated prism taught in Kim with the MRA10-FO1 prism disclosed by Thorlabs to follow the recommendations based on the laser wavelength.
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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 9:00 - 6:00 CDT.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877