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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 05/26/2026 is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 1-9 are pending.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
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 1-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites “the AOM configured to produce laser pulses alternating between a first pulse wavelength and a second pulse wavelength at a modulation rate of at least 1 MHz”. However, there is inadequate support in the instant application for an acousto-optic modulator alone to perform the modulation of the wavelengths of a light pulse. Paragraphs [0101], [0127] and [0128] and Figs. 1 and 4 describe the wavelength modulation being performed by an AOM in conjunction with a polarization-maintaining single-mode fiber. An AOM alone is used to shift the frequency of a light source, and would be unable to modulate the wavelength of a light source. Additionally, there is no support for the modulation rate to be at least 1 MHz, as paragraph [0128] only discloses the AOM operating at a rate of 10 kHz. Claims 2-9 are rejected by dependency.
Claim 7 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.
The term “much less than” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “much less than” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The specification does not provide a degree or definition for what “much less than” means, and as a result it is unclear how much thinner the reflecting and protective layers must be than the ultrasonic wavelength of the photoacoustic signals. For purposes of examination below, the examiner is interpreting “much less than” to require the reflecting and protective layers to be at least a magnitude less than the ultrasonic wavelength.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (“Super-resolution localization photoacoustic microscopy using intrinsic red blood cells as contrast absorbers”. Light Sci Appl 8, 103. 2019) as modified by Yavas ("A novel fiber laser development for photoacoustic microscopy," Proc. SPIE 8581, Photons Plus Ultrasound: Imaging and Sensing 2013, 85813S. 4 March 2013), Park ("Dual-wavelength nanosecond pulsed-laser using stimulated Raman scattering for fast functional photoacoustic microscopy," in Opto-Acoustic Methods and Applications in Biophotonics IV, Vol. EB104 of SPIE Proceedings (Optica Publishing Group, 2019), and Sun (US20150160120A1).
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), the AOM configured to produce laser pulses alternating between a first pulse wavelength and a second pulse wavelength 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 (abstract; last paragraph of 'Introduction').
Yavas discloses the use of an AOM allows complete control over the pulse train, including frequency, intensity and direction of the laser beam pulses (first paragraph of 'Experiment Setup'). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the photoacoustic microscopy system of Kim with the AOM of Yavas to enable complete control over the pulse train, including frequency, intensity and direction of the laser beam pulses.
Kim as modified by Yavas fails to teach the AOM configured to produce laser pulses alternating between a first pulse wavelength and a second pulse wavelength at a modulation rate of at least 1 MHz.
However, in the same field of endeavor of photoacoustic microscopy systems, Park teaches a modulation between two pulsed laser wavelengths accomplished by a combination of an electro-optic modulator and polarization-maintaining single-mode fiber (Fig. 1; page 2, paragraph 1).
Park discloses using various wavelengths are better suited for fast multiparametric photoacoustic imaging than using a single wavelength (page 1, paragraph 2) as using two wavelengths would improve the applicability of the device. Further, AOMs and EOMs are both devices used to alter light properties, but AOMs offer this shifting at a lower cost. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the AOM of Kim as modified by Yavas with the EOM which aids in enabling dual wavelengths taught in park to better suit fast multiparametric photoacoustic imaging as the dual wavelengths enable more applicability of the system at a lower cost.
Kim as modified by Yavas and Park fails to teach the AOM has a modulation frequency of at least 1 MHz.
However, in the same field of endeavor of photoacoustic microscopy systems, Sun teaches an acousto-optical modulator (paragraph [0043] discloses the light modulation module may be an AOM) which modulates a light beam between two diffraction orders (paragraph [0052]) at a frequency rate of either 80.5 MHz or 81 MHz (paragraph [0073]).
Sun discloses this modulation frequency ensures images are obtained when the photoacoustic effect is induced (paragraph [0072]). Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the AOM of Kim as modified by Yavas and Park with the modulation frequency taught in Sun in order to ensure any images taken by the PAM system are accurately capturing the photoacoustic effect.
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Yavas, Park and Sun 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, Park and Sun 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 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).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (“Super-resolution localization photoacoustic microscopy using intrinsic red blood cells as contrast absorbers”. Light Sci Appl 8, 103. 2019) as modified by Yavas ("A novel fiber laser development for photoacoustic microscopy," Proc. SPIE 8581, Photons Plus Ultrasound: Imaging and Sensing 2013, 85813S. 4 March 2013), Park ("Dual-wavelength nanosecond pulsed-laser using stimulated Raman scattering for fast functional photoacoustic microscopy," in Opto-Acoustic Methods and Applications in Biophotonics IV, Vol. EB104 of SPIE Proceedings (Optica Publishing Group, 2019), and Sun (US20150160120A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Hu ("Second-generation optical-resolution photoacoustic microscopy with improved sensitivity and speed," Opt. Lett. 36, 1134-1136 (2011)).
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Yavas, Park and Sun 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, in the same field of endeavor of photoacoustic microscopy, 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).
Hu discloses an AOC with this structure enhances detection sensitivity (page 1134, end of 2ⁿᵈ column). Thus, 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 as modified by Yavas, Park and Sun with acoustic coupling taught in Hu because it enhances the detection sensitivity.
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Yavas, Park, Sun and Hu teaches the system as explained above in claim 4, and further teaches the coupling medium is water (Hu: page 1134, end of 2nd column – page 1135, beginning of 1st column).
As discussed above in claim 4, 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 as modified by Yavas, Park and Sun with acoustic coupling taught in Hu because it enhances the detection sensitivity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6, 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 7 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 112(b) or 25 USC 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 11:00-8:00 ET.
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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights