DETAILED ACTION
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 action is in response to amendments filed on 12/02/2025. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11 are pending and examined below.
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(s) 1-2, 4-10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by US 20070269837 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Mcgreevy”) in view of US 20060247537 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Matsumoto”), and US 20080059070 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Boyden”).
Regarding claim 1, Mcgreevy, a teaches system facilitating differentiation between parathyroid tissue and thyroid tissue of a subject (system is used to determine fluorescent material from a sample using an emitter/detector and thus can be used to differentiate between parathyroid tissue and thyroid tissue; abstract), comprising:
a light source for illuminating tissue in a target region in the neck area of the subject (2; paragraph [0116]; Figure 1);
a first optical coupler optically coupled with the light source for delivering light from the light source to the tissue (52; paragraph [0046]; Figure 1);
a second optical coupler for collecting optical signals emitted from the tissue responsive to the light (16; paragraph [0047]; Figure 1); and
a detector for detecting intensities of the optical signals emitted from the tissue; wherein the detector can detect differences in intensities of the optical signals between the parathyroid tissue and the thyroid tissue, thereby facilitating differentiation (teaches a detector which would be able to determine fluorescence; paragraphs [0097]-[0098], [0117]-[0119]); but does not explicitly teach wherein the optical signals are autofluorescence, that the detector is a camera, and wherein the light is adapted such that the auto-fluorescence is in a wavelength of about 800-100 nm.
However, Matsumoto teaches wherein the detector detects intensities of optical signals emitting from the tissue that are autofluorescence (paragraphs [0019], claim 2). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of McGreevy, to detect autofluorescence, because doing so provides a detector device capable of measuring detecting distribution of fluorescence to determine anormal tissue.
Further, Boyden, a fluorescent imaging device, teaches a detector being a camera (paragraph [0224]) and wherein the light source is configured to produce light for delivery to the tissue to cause the auto-fluorescence of both the thyroid tissue and the parathyroid tissue is in a wavelength range of about 800-1000 nm (paragraph [0087],[0234]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of McGreevy, in view of Matusomoto, to use a camera as a detector, because it would be the simple substitution of one known element (the detector of McGreevy) with another (the camera of Boyden) in order to achieve a predictable result namely a means detecting intensities of specific tissue region. Further It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of McGreevy, in view of Matusomoto, to have the light source is configured to produce light for delivery to the tissue to cause the auto-fluorescence of both the thyroid tissue and the parathyroid tissue is in a wavelength range of about 800-1000 nm, as taught by Boyden, because doing elicits an auto fluorescent response which can be used to detect for disease detection.
Regarding claim 2, Mcgreevy, in view of Matsumoto, and Boyden, teaches emitting light in an infrared wavelength (paragraph [0087],[0234]; as taught by Boyden).
Regarding claim 4, Mcgreevy, in view of Matsumoto, and Boyden, teaches further comprising a display in communication with the detector for displaying the intensities of the optical signals emitted from the tissue (paragraphs [0119], [0130]; as taught by McGreevy).
Regarding claim 5, Mcgreevy, in view of Matsumoto, and Boyden, teaches further comprising a filter for filtering excess ambient (paragraph [0047]; as taught by McGreevy).
Regarding claim 6, Mcgreevy, in view of Matsumoto, and Boyden, teaches emitting light in an infrared wavelength (paragraph [0087],[0234]; as taught by Boyden).
Regarding claim 7, Mcgreevy, in view of Matsumoto, and Boyden, teaches wherein the collection device is configured to collect optical auto-fluorescence signals (paragraph [0117]-[0119]; Figure 1; as taught by McGreevy).
Regarding claim 8, Mcgreevy, in view of Matsumoto, and Boyden, teaches further comprising a display in communication with the detector for displaying the intensities of the optical signals emitted from the tissue (paragraphs [0119], [0130]; as taught by McGreevy).
Regarding claim 9, Mcgreevy, in view of Matsumoto, and Boyden, teaches wherein the intensities of the optical signals of the parathyroid tissue are about 2-11 times greater than that of the thyroid tissue (teaches a detector which would be able to determine fluorescence; paragraphs [0097]-[0098], [0117]-[0119];as taught by McGreevy).
Regarding claim 10, McGreevy teaches a system facilitating differentiation between parathyroid tissue and thyroid tissue of a subject (system is used to determine fluorescent material from a sample using an emitter/detector and thus can be used to differentiate between parathyroid tissue and thyroid tissue; abstract), comprising:
a light source for illuminating tissue in a target region in the neck area of the subject (52; paragraph [0046]; Figure 1);
an optical coupler optically coupled with the light source for delivering light from the light source to the tissue (12 and 16; paragraph [0118]; Figure 1);
a detector for detecting intensities of the optical signals emitted from the tissue; wherein the detector can detect differences in intensities of the optical signals between the parathyroid tissue and the thyroid tissue, thereby facilitating differentiation (teaches a detector which would be able to determine fluorescence; paragraphs [0097]-[0098], [0117]-[0119]); and
a display in communication with the detector for displaying the intensities of the optical signals emitted from the tissue (paragraphs [0119], [0130]); but does not explicitly teach wherein the optical signals are autofluorescence, that the detector is a camera, and wherein the light is adapted such that the auto-fluorescence is in a wavelength of about 800-100 nm.
However, Matsumoto teaches wherein the detector detects intensities of optical signals emitting from the tissue that are autofluorescence (paragraphs [0019], claim 2) It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of McGreevy, to detect autofluorescence, because doing so provides a detector device capable of measuring detecting distribution of fluorescence to determine anormal tissue.
Further, Boyden, a fluorescent imaging device, teaches a detector being a camera (paragraph [0224]) and wherein the light source is configured to produce light for delivery to the tissue to cause the auto-fluorescence of both the thyroid tissue and the parathyroid tissue is in a wavelength range of about 800-1000 nm (paragraph [0087],[0234]). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of McGreevy, in view of Matusomoto, to use a camera as a detector, because it would be the simple substitution of one known element (the detector of McGreevy) with another (the camera of Boyden) in order to achieve a predictable result namely a means detecting intensities of specific tissue region. Further It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of McGreevy, in view of Matusomoto, to have the light source is configured to produce light for delivery to the tissue to cause the auto-fluorescence of both the thyroid tissue and the parathyroid tissue is in a wavelength range of about 800-1000 nm, as taught by Boyden, because doing elicits an auto fluorescent response which can be used to detect for disease detection.
Regarding claim 11, Mcgreevy, in view of Matsumoto, and Boyden, teaches wherein the predetermined wavelength is about 785 nm (paragraph [0087],[0234]; as taught by Boyden).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/02/2025, with respect to the prior art rejections, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ABID A MUSTANSIR whose telephone number is (408)918-7647. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10 am to 6 pm Pacific Time.
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, Jason Sims can be reached at 571-272-7540. 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.
/ABID A MUSTANSIR/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights