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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GB on 2018-01-29. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the GB1801450.6 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species B (claims 47, 49-50, 55-57, 59-60, and 65-66) in the reply filed on 10/06/2025 is acknowledged.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the term “beam director” of claims 47 and 57 is not present in the specification.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
the “beam director” with the functional limitation of “to direct the one or more interrogation beams” of claims 47 and 57.
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 as follows:
A review of the specification reveals that the term “beam director” is never provided in the specification; however, the presence of the related term “beam directing means” which as per [0092] of the applicant’s specification can be the structure of “… one or more steering mirrors, lenses, microlenses or other appropriate optical components attached to one or more micromechanical control devices, servos, MEMS controllers or galvanometers. In other embodiments, … the beam directing means may be an optical fibre or an optical fibre bundle …” provides adequate description to allow one of ordinary skill to understand that the term covers any of mirrors, lenses, and optical fibers, and that the term is drafted in an open-ended format and can additionally cover any structure which could be considered as an “other appropriate optical component” for the function of directing the beam.
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 § 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.
Claims 47, 49-50, 55-57, 59-60, and 65-66 are 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 47 and 57 recites the limitation "the cavity" in lines 12, 15, and 18 (re: claim 47) and in lines 13, 16, and 19 (re: claim 57). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that the term “the Fabry Perot interferometric cavity” would have proper antecedence. Claims 49-50, 55-56, 59-60, and 65-66 are each similarly affected, at least by virtue of dependency.
Claims 47 and 57 recite the limitation “the Fabry Perot cavity” in lines 13 and 14 respectively. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that the term “the Fabry Perot interferometric cavity” would have proper antecedence. Claims 49-50, 55-56, 59-60, and 65-66 are each similarly affected, at least by virtue of dependency.
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) 47, 49, 55-57, 59, and 65-66 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160095520 A1 by Zhang et al. (hereafter Zhang) further in view of US 20140076055 A1 by Asao et al. (hereafter Asao).
Regarding claim 47, Zhang teaches: 47. Apparatus for use in ultrasound optical sensing with respect to a sample in which an acoustic field is generated in response to a stimulus (see Zhang’s Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a sensor head having an acoustically sensitive surface arranged as a reflective surface of a Fabry Perot interferometric cavity (see Zhang’s Figs. 1-2 noting the FP sensor head 115);
a wavelength tuneable light source for generating one or more interrogation beams of electromagnetic radiation (see Zhang’s Figs. 1-2 noting the interrogation laser 121 in light of either [0040] or [0058] which iterate that this laser is tunable or tuned during use, respectively);
a beam director to direct the one or more interrogation beams onto said acoustically sensitive surface (see Zhang’s Figs. 1-2 noting at least the scanning mirror 126 with depicted x-y scanning motion or the micromirror array 170 respectively. While the structure of the director is not required to encompass anything additional to the mirror(s) the examiner notes that [0040] discusses a beam shaper, Figs. 1-2 include lenses and other optics, etc.);
a detector configured to receive and determine one or more values representative of the power of the reflected one or more interrogation beams (see Zhang’s Figs. 1-2 part 150, optionally also including part 155);
a computer readable medium [function moved below]; and a controller for [function moved below] (regarding the structure of the medium and controller together, see Zhang’s [0069] and note that all processing is performed on a collection of hardware such as a computer having memory), wherein the controller is further configured to:
controlling the wavelength of the light source to produce the bias phase φ.sub.b in the cavity [and] storing phase data representing a bias phase φ.sub.b of the light field in the cavity at which the power of the interrogation beam interferometrically reflected from the Fabry Perot cavity is in use modulated by the signal from the acoustic field; a) monitor the reflected power of the one or more reflected beams; b) determine, from the reflected power … bias phase φ.sub.b (regarding these together, see Zhang’s [0058]-[0059] which sets forth that the interrogation beam is controlled to scan each wavelength over each location of the FP sensor head, receiving the reflected beam and determining the power and biases for each location, recording the phase biases for each location and determining the optimum, then later utilizing the stored optimum phase biases for each particular location in subsequent acquisitions so as to teach the scope of each of the foregoing grouped limitations)…; and, c) ….
In the foregoing the examiner omitted limitations from b) and c) as indicated above by ellipsis because while Zhang teaches the majority of limitations including that the thickness of the polymer determines the phase bias (see e.g. Zhang’s [0060] noting that the thickness of the layers in the FP affects the phase bias), Zhang is silent as to updating the phase bias and thus fails to fully teach portions of: “b) determine, from the reflected power, an adjustment δφ.sub.b to the current bias phase φ.sub.b needed to compensate for a change in the reflected power from the cavity; and, c) update the stored value of the bias phase, φ.sub.b, in the phase data to a compensated bias phase value based on the determined adjustment δφ.sub.b to the currently stored bias phase φ.sub.b.”
However, Asao in the same or eminently related field of photoacoustic sensors using a FP sensor head (see Asao’s Abstract and Fig. 1) teaches that one can advantageously compensate for variations in sensor head characteristics that change with time such as the ambient temperature and teaches that one can accomplish this by updating the phase biases for each location (Asao teaches that variation in the thickness can affect FP sensor head performance in myriad sections, notably it is mentioned in the Abstract or claim 1 as it is integral to the Asao invention, furthermore Asao’s [0164] notes that variations can occur over time and must be dealt with periodically during use, and in particular Asao’s [0195] notes that changes in ambient temperature or can cause changes in the thickness of the FP over time, and that compensating for these changes in thickness is advantageous per se as per [0019] which describes that this increases sensitivity. Notably the examiner chose temperature as a direct example of a variable affecting thickness in order to compact prosecution as this is the variable addressed in the applicant’s specification, but for compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that Asao’s invention can account for variations in thickness that arise due to any other source such as movement/deformation as described at [0038] among others. With that established, see Asao’s [0038]-[0049] which the steps of determining the phases and compensating for the phase biases. In particular the examiner notes that after determining phase differences Asao changes the emitted wavelength of light as per [0048] to compensate for the phase differences so as to teach deviating from the predetermined optimum for interrogation based on the sensed phase biases. In this instance the examiner noted the foregoing specifically for compact prosecution purposes as the base art already has a tunable interrogation beam and does not innately have the ability to change the refractive index of the FP sensor head. However and for compact prosecution purposes the examiner also notes that there is no issue with including or incorporating these additional structures of Asao (e.g. the voltage source and liquid crystal) as an alternative grounds of modification as Asao’s [0038]-[0049] teaches plural ways to compensate for the phase variation which are combinable and can be used together with e.g. refractive changes being used to accommodate for small changes in thickness as described and with the changes in the wavelength being used to accommodate larger changes in thickness as described in the forgoing citation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to update the phase biases of light used for interrogation as taught by Asao in order to advantageously allow the invention to accommodate for changes in the layer thickness in the FP sensor head while maintaining high sensitivity.
Regarding claim 49, Zhang IVO Asao further teaches: 49. The apparatus of claim 47, wherein: the beam director is configured to direct the one or more interrogation beams onto addressable locations (x,y) across said acoustically sensitive surface; the detector is configured to receive and determine one or more values representative of the power of the reflected one or more interrogation beams from the addressable locations (x,y); and the phase data is stored as a set of phase values φ.sub.b for addressable locations (x,y) of the sensor head wherein the controller is configured to monitor the reflected power at a plurality of addressable locations (x,y) for bias tracking, and to update the stored values of the bias phase, φ.sub.b, for all addressable locations (x,y) of the sensor head based on the determined adjustments δφ.sub.b to the current bias phase φ.sub.b for each of the plurality of addressable location (x,y) for bias tracking (regarding each of the foregoing limitations, the rejection of parent claim 47 included each step with the exception of the step being ‘for addressable locations’ in an ‘(x, y)’ surface of the FP head. As such see the rejection of claim 47 above and then see also Zhang’s [0026] doing this for each (x, y) coordinate on the sensor head).
Regarding claim 55, Zhang IVO Asao further teaches: 55. The apparatus of claim 47, wherein the steps a), b), and c) of monitoring, determining and updating are performed between successive image acquisitions or during image acquisition (Zhang teaches performing this between acquisition sessions, noting the basic determination of Zhang is a pre-scan/pre-tuning procedure as per [0058]; however, the same modification to update the phase bias using Asao already taught doing this during image acquisition, see e.g. Asao’s [0164] for updating during usage).
Regarding claim 56, Zhang IVO Asao further teaches: 56. The apparatus of claim 49, wherein the plurality of addressable locations (x,y) for bias tracking are selected to have a common bias phase φ.sub.b (this is taught by both Zhang and Asao, see Zhang’s [0059] which teaches portions of the sensor head that have the same bias wavelength then changing wavelength and rescanning other portions. Additionally or alternatively see Asao’s [0108] which states this directly).
Regarding claim 57, Zhang teaches: 57. A method for use in ultrasound optical sensing with respect to a sample in which an acoustic field is generated in response to a stimulus (see Zhang’s Abstract), the method for use with an apparatus comprising:
a sensor head having an acoustically sensitive surface arranged as a reflective surface of a Fabry Perot interferometric cavity (see Zhang’s Figs. 1-2 noting the FP sensor head 115);
a wavelength tuneable light source, for generating one or more interrogation beams of electromagnetic radiation (see Zhang’s Figs. 1-2 noting the interrogation laser 121 in light of either [0040] or [0058] which iterate that this laser is tunable or tuned during use, respectively);
a beam director to direct the one or more interrogation beams onto said acoustically sensitive surface (see Zhang’s Figs. 1-2 noting at least the scanning mirror 126 with depicted x-y scanning motion or the micromirror array 170 respectively. While the structure of the director is not required to encompass anything additional to the mirror(s) the examiner notes that [0040] discusses a beam shaper, Figs. 1-2 include lenses and other optics, etc.);
a detector configured to receive and determine one or more values representative of the power of the reflected one or more interrogation beams (see Zhang’s Figs. 1-2 part 150, optionally also including part 155); and
a computer readable medium (regarding the structure of the medium, see Zhang’s [0069] and note that all processing is performed on a collection of hardware such as a computer having memory);
storing phase data representative of a bias phase φ.sub.b of the light field in the cavity at which the power of the interrogation beam interferometrically reflected from the Fabry Perot cavity is in use modulated by the signal from the acoustic field[;] the method comprising adjusting the determined bias phase, φ.sub.b, to compensate for local or bulk changes in the optical path length in the cavity in use, such as due to variations in sensor head temperature and applied pressure since the tuning process, by: a) in use, monitoring the reflected power of the one or more reflected beams; b) determine, from the reflected power … bias phase φ.sub.b (regarding these together, see Zhang’s [0058]-[0059] which sets forth that the interrogation beam is controlled to scan each wavelength over each location of the FP sensor head, receiving the reflected beam and determining the power and biases for each location, recording the phase biases for each location and determining the optimum, then later utilizing the stored optimum phase biases for each particular location in subsequent acquisitions so as to teach the scope of each of the foregoing grouped limitations)…; and, c) ….
In the foregoing the examiner omitted limitations from b) and c) as indicated above by ellipsis because while Zhang teaches the majority of limitations including that the thickness of the polymer determines the phase bias (see e.g. Zhang’s [0060] noting that the thickness of the layers in the FP affects the phase bias), Zhang is silent as to updating the phase bias and thus fails to fully teach portions of: “b) determine, from the reflected power, an adjustment δφ.sub.b to the current bias phase φ.sub.b needed to compensate for a change in the reflected power from the cavity; and, c) update the stored value of the bias phase, φ.sub.b, in the phase data to a compensated bias phase value based on the determined adjustment δφ.sub.b to the currently stored bias phase φ.sub.b.”
However, Asao in the same or eminently related field of photoacoustic sensors using a FP sensor head (see Asao’s Abstract and Fig. 1) teaches that one can advantageously compensate for variations in sensor head characteristics that change with time such as the ambient temperature and teaches that one can accomplish this by updating the phase biases for each location (Asao teaches that variation in the thickness can affect FP sensor head performance in myriad sections, notably it is mentioned in the Abstract or claim 1 as it is integral to the Asao invention, furthermore Asao’s [0164] notes that variations can occur over time and must be dealt with periodically during use, and in particular Asao’s [0195] notes that changes in ambient temperature or can cause changes in the thickness of the FP over time, and that compensating for these changes in thickness is advantageous per se as per [0019] which describes that this increases sensitivity. Notably the examiner chose temperature as a direct example of a variable affecting thickness in order to compact prosecution as this is the variable addressed in the applicant’s specification, but for compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that Asao’s invention can account for variations in thickness that arise due to any other source such as movement/deformation as described at [0038] among others. With that established, see Asao’s [0038]-[0049] which the steps of determining the phases and compensating for the phase biases. In particular the examiner notes that after determining phase differences Asao changes the emitted wavelength of light as per [0048] to compensate for the phase differences so as to teach deviating from the predetermined optimum for interrogation based on the sensed phase biases. In this instance the examiner noted the foregoing specifically for compact prosecution purposes as the base art already has a tunable interrogation beam and does not innately have the ability to change the refractive index of the FP sensor head. However and for compact prosecution purposes the examiner also notes that there is no issue with including or incorporating these additional structures of Asao (e.g. the voltage source and liquid crystal) as an alternative grounds of modification as Asao’s [0038]-[0049] teaches plural ways to compensate for the phase variation which are combinable and can be used together with e.g. refractive changes being used to accommodate for small changes in thickness as described and with the changes in the wavelength being used to accommodate larger changes in thickness as described in the forgoing citation).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to update the phase biases of light used for interrogation as taught by Asao in order to advantageously allow the invention to accommodate for changes in the layer thickness in the FP sensor head while maintaining high sensitivity.
Regarding claim 59, Zhang IVO Asao further teaches: 59. The method of claim 57, wherein the method comprises monitoring the reflected power at a plurality of addressable locations (x,y) for bias tracking, and updating the stored values of the bias phase, φ.sub.b, for all addressable locations (x,y) of the sensor head based on the determined adjustments δφ.sub.b to the current bias phase φ.sub.b for each of the plurality of addressable location (x,y) for bias tracking (regarding each of the foregoing limitations, the rejection of parent claim 57 included each step with the exception of the step being ‘for addressable locations’ in an ‘(x, y)’ surface of the FP head. As such see the rejection of claim 47 above and then see also Zhang’s [0026] doing this for each (x, y) coordinate on the sensor head).
Regarding claim 65, Zhang IVO Asao further teaches: 65. The method of claim 57, wherein the steps a), b), and c) of monitoring, determining and updating are performed between successive image acquisitions or during image acquisition (Zhang teaches performing this between acquisition sessions, noting the basic determination of Zhang is a pre-scan/pre-tuning procedure as per [0058]; however, the same modification to update the phase bias using Asao already taught doing this during image acquisition, see e.g. Asao’s [0164] for updating during usage).
Regarding claim 66, Zhang IVO Asao further teaches: 66. The method of claim 59, wherein the plurality of addressable locations (x,y) for bias tracking are selected to have a common bias phase φ.sub.b (this is taught by both Zhang and Asao, see Zhang’s [0059] which teaches portions of the sensor head that have the same bias wavelength then changing wavelength and rescanning other portions. Additionally or alternatively, see Asao’s [0108] which states this directly).
Claim(s) 50 and 60 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang IVO Asao as applied to claims 49 and 59 above, and further in view of US 20170000354 A1 by Zalev et al. (hereafter Zalev).
Regarding claims 50 and 60, Zhang IVO Asao teaches the basic invention as given above in regards to claims 49 and 59. Additionally, Zhang teaches that these sorts of systems have long data acquisition times when operating at reasonable resolution and that it is important to reduce these times to allow for real time monitoring of physiological changes (see Zhang’s [0001] for showing that one of the overarching goals of the invention is to reduce image acquisition time, then see [0009] for a general statement about the art as a whole having long acquisition times, then see [0028] which addresses that the system of Fig. 1 takes ~ 6 minutes to form a 600x600 pixel image making it too slow for monitoring dynamic physiological changes). However, neither Zhang nor Asao teach upsampling and interpolating the data to reduce the data acquisition time, therefore these references fail to fully teach: “50. The apparatus of claim 49, wherein, to update the stored values of the determined bias phase, φ.sub.b, the controller is configured to: upsample and interpolate the determined adjustments δφ.sub.b to the current bias phase φ.sub.b for each of the plurality of addressable locations (x,y) for bias tracking, to obtain a determined adjustment δφ.sub.b to the current bias phase φ.sub.b for all of the addressable locations (x,y) across the sensor head.” Or “60. The method of claim 59, wherein updating the stored values of the determined bias phase, φ.sub.b, comprises: upsampling and interpolating the determined adjustments δφ.sub.b to the current bias phase φ.sub.b for each of the plurality of addressable locations (x,y) for bias tracking, to obtain a determined adjustment δφ.sub.b to the current bias phase φ.sub.b for all of the addressable locations (x,y) across the sensor head.”
However Zalev in the related field of photoacoustic tomography (see Zalev’s Abstract) solves the same or a similar problem to that identified by Zhang above as Zalev teaches that in instances the sampling rate is too low to take an image of adequate resolution one can take a lower resolution image and upsample and interpolate to produce a higher resolution image than could otherwise be captured in the available time (see Zalev’s [0202]-[0204] which state as much plainly, where this same principle could be applied to the phase bias image).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the date of invention to improve the combination of Zhang IVO Asao with the use of upsampling and interpolation as taught by Zalev in order to advantageously allow for the phase bias to be determined more quickly while still being of adequate resolution.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Backward-mode multiwavelength photoacoustic scanner using a planar Fabry–Perot polymer film ultrasound sensor for high-resolution three-dimensional imaging of biological tissues by Zhang et al. (hereafter Zhang2) is a related work cited by the Zhang reference used above which goes into more detail about how to determine the phase bias and how the computer is in control of all components of the system and therefore could also serve as a substitute primary reference or as a modifying reference in the event that the applicant elaborates more on the control architecture or phase bias determination steps.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael S Kellogg whose telephone number is (571)270-7278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-1pm.
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.
/MICHAEL S KELLOGG/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798