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
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 04/02/26 has been entered.
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 Sasaki et al. (US 2006/0008745).
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 (see Fig. 1C, [0009], [0012], [0065], [0103]; element 80; light pass through optically transparent portion of the transducer/receiver);
a transparent substrate positioned in between the array of receiver elements and the light source system and wherein the apparatus is configured to transmit light from the light source system through the transparent substrate, and through the transparent portion of the array of receiver elements to a target object on an outer surface of the apparatus, the blood vessel residing within the target object (see Figs. 1A-2D, 10, 12, 14-15, 17 and [0035]; monitoring hemodynamic activity through vasculature imaging; imaging blood vessel within the mouse head).
Dangi however, he does not disclose a substrate with an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield configured to allow light transmission therethrough. Sasaki discloses a substrate with an electromagnetic interference (EMI) shield configured to allow light transmission therethrough (see abstract, [0002], [0008], [0018], [0022] and [0184]). 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 configured to allow light transmission therethrough as taught by Sasaki because this provides electromagnetic shielding and provide satisfactory optical transmission (see [0018]).
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 Sasaki et al. (US 2006/0008745) 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 Sasaki et al. (US 2006/0008745) 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 Sasaki et al. (US 2006/0008745) 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 with respect to claims 1-11 and 13-16 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.
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); 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); US 2016/0330835 (see [0003]; transparent shield); US 2004/0033384 (see [0002]; transparent EMI shield) and US 2008/0013299 (see [0061-0062]).
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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 3797
Prosecution Insights