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 .
DETAILED ACTION
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.
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.
Claim 1, 4, 6-8, 12-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangi et al. (US 2022/0133273 (provided in the IDS)) and in view of Frey et al. (US 2005/0203409).
Addressing claims 1, Dangi discloses an apparatus, comprising:
a light source system including a light-emitting component (see [0065] and Fig. 1C; element 85);
a receiver system including an array of receiver elements and receiver system circuitry, wherein at least a portion of the array of receiver elements is transparent, the receiver system being configured to detect acoustic waves corresponding to a photoacoustic response of a blood vessel to light emitted by the light source system through the transparent portion of the array of receiver elements (see Fig. 1C, [0009], [0012], [0065], [0103]; element 80; light pass through optically transparent portion of the transducer/receiver).
Dangi discloses a transparent substrate positioned in between the array of receiver elements and the light source system. However, he does not disclose a substrate with an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield. Frey discloses a substrate with an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield (see [0050]; EMI shield for substrate and some or all layers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dangi to have a substrate with an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield as taught by Frey because this provides shielding to the layers to prevent interference (see abstract and [0050]).
Also see the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the conclusion section.
4. Addressing claims 4, 6-8, 13-14 and 16, Dangi discloses:
addressing claim 4, wherein the array of receiver elements comprises a transparent electrode layer (see claim 4).
addressing claim 6, a transparent matching layer positioned in between the receiver elements and the blood vessel (see [0097-0098]; transparent matching layer between receiver element/transducer and tissue; tissue include blood vessel; the device is capable of using to image blood vessel; image simulated blood vessel).
addressing claim 7, a first transparent backing layer positioned in between the array of receiver elements and the light source system (see Fig. 1A, 2A-D and [0064]; transparent backing layer 44 is between light source 30, 110-140 and transducer element 20).
addressing claim 8, wherein the first transparent backing layer comprises at least one of glass or epoxy (see [0064]).
addressing claim 13, a light guide positioned in between the array of receiver elements and the light source system (see [0010] and Figs. 2A-D; lens on top of light source 120-140 is a light guide; lens guide to focus laser on the tissue; lens on top of light source 120-140 and between receiver 100 and light source).
addressing claim 14. The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising a lens positioned in between the array of receiver elements and the light source system (see [0010] and Figs. 2A-D; lens on top of light source 120-140).
addressing claim 16, wherein the receiver system comprises at least one of: lithium niobate, lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate (PMN-PT), polyvinylidene fluoride tetrafluoroethylene (PVDF), or a copolymer film with an indium tin oxide coating (see [0009]).
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangi et al. (US 2022/0133273 (provided in the IDS)), in view of Frey et al. (US 2005/0203409) and further in view of Luo et al. (US 2013/0042688 (provided in the IDS)).
Addressing claims 2-3, Dangi does not disclose a platen having a transparent platen portion, wherein the platen is positioned in between the receiver system and where the blood vessel is presented and wherein a thickness of the platen ranges from 200 um to 400 um. In the same field of endeavor, Luo discloses wherein the platen is positioned in between the receiver system and where the blood vessel is presented and wherein a thickness of the platen 0.1 micrometer (see [0027] and [0029]; the protection layer 370 is the platen; the protection layer is between receiver and where the tissue is presented; the tissue could include blood vessel; Dangi explicitly disclose phantom tissue is simulated blood vessel; In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.); In Gardnerv.TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dangi to have a platen layer because this help protect the device (see [0027]). Also see section below the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Platen thickness of a designer choice of wide range.
Claims 5 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangi et al. (US 2022/0133273 (provided in the IDS)), in view of Frey et al. (US 2005/0203409) and Lukacs et al. (US 2005/0272183).
Addressing claims 5 and 15, Dangi does not explicitly disclose patterned electrode layer and a lens positioned in between the array of receiver elements and where the blood vessel is presented. Dangi discloses transparent electrode on both sides, but does not explicitly disclose the electrode is patterned. Patterned electrode is well-known and only require routine skill in the art. Lukacs explicitly disclose patterned electrode (see [0049-0050]) and a lens positioned in between the array of receiver elements and where the blood vessel is presented (see Fig. 4, [0002] and [0013-0014]; the lens 302 is between receiver element/piezoelectric 106 and imaging tissue; the imaging tissue could include blood vessel; the device is capable of imaging blood vessel). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dangi to have patterned electrode layer and a lens positioned in between the array of receiver elements and where the blood vessel is presented as taught by Lukacs because the lens help focus energy (see [0063]).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dangi et al. (US 2022/0133273 (provided in the IDS)), in view of Frey et al. (US 2005/0203409) and further in view of Song (US 2015/0190116).
Addressing claims 9-11, Dangi discloses transparent backing layer. Dangi does not explicitly disclose a second backing layer proximate the first backing layer; wherein the first and second backing layers have different material compositions and wherein a first material composition of the second backing layer is selected to affect at least one of an acoustic impedance or an attenuation based on a second material composition of the first backing layer. However, this is only designer choice and only require routine skill in the art. In reHarza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a “web” which lies in the joint, and a plurality of “ribs” projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.). Using different material for backing layer and having multiple back layers only require routine skill in the art. Song explicitly discloses a second backing layer proximate the first backing layer; wherein the first and second backing layers have different material compositions and wherein a first material composition of the second transparent backing layer is selected to affect at least one of an acoustic impedance or an attenuation based on a second material composition of the first transparent backing layer (see abstract and [0098]; Song explicitly discloses first and second backing layers with different material; when the backing layers stack together the first backing layer in a dual-backing ultrasound transducer affects the acoustic impedance and attenuation of the second backing layer or vice versa by influencing the acoustic environment and how the overall transducer functions; the material use in these layers affect each other; this is inherent characteristic and function of backing layers). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dangi to have a second backing layer proximate the first backing layer; wherein the first and second backing layers have different material compositions and wherein a first material composition of the second backing layer is selected to affect at least one of an acoustic impedance or an attenuation based on a second material composition of the first backing layer as taught by Song because this help prevent image distortion (see [0007]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Frey is not reasonably pertinent to the problem that the inventors of the present application were trying to solve and therefore is not analogous art. Applicant argues Frey does not have teachings that involve making photoacoustic sensors at all. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because examiner never indicate that Frey is in the art of making photoacoustic sensors. The Office Action does not indicate Frey discloses making photoacoustic sensors. The main reference Dangi discloses making photoacoustic sensors. Examiner only relies on Frey to disclose a substrate with an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield. Applicant argues Frey does not disclose a transparent substrate positioned between an array of receiver elements and a light source system. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because in the Office Action examiner indicate Dangi discloses a transparent substrate positioned in between the array of receiver elements and the light source system. Applicant argues Frey does not address the noise problems that may be produced by EMI from a light source system being detected by an array of receiver elements. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because examiner does not suggest Frey address the noise problems that may be produced by EMI from a light source system being detected by an array of receiver elements. Examiner suggested the motivation reason to combine is to shield the receiver/piezoelectric from interference. The system can be improved by shielding the component from light, electrical interference or other form of energy interference. Frey avoid interference from electrical noise therefore he has EMI shield for the substrate. Combine Dangi and Frey the substrate piezoelectric receiving system can be EMI shield against electrical and light interference. Dangi in view of Frey disclose a transparent substrate with an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield positioned between the array of receiver elements and the light source system. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2015/0241393 (see [0089]; transparent platen with thickness of 100 to 500 micrometer or thicker; sapphire material is transparent) and US 2019/0197281 (see Figs. 5-15, [0017], [0107], [0195-0196] and [0266-0267]; substrate with light/EMI shield layers 162, 170 position between ultrasound sensor/receiver 140 and light source 122).
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 HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3793
Prosecution Insights