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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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, 8, 10 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Hu et al. (US Pub No. 2021/0044748) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hu et al..
With regards to claim 1, Hu et al. disclose a diffuse optical tomography (DOT) device, comprising:
a substrate (110) (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], referring to the meta-lens (100) including a single substrate (110); Figures 1A, 10A);
one or more radiation sources (1010, 140) disposed over a first surface or a second surface of the substrate (110, 700) (paragraph [0064], referring to the light sources (140); paragraph [0094], referring to the laser (1010), which, as depicted in Figure 10A, is disposed over a surface of the metalens (700); Figures 1, 10);
a plurality of detectors (i.e. “Detector or emitter array”; or 1030) wherein each detector of the plurality of detectors has a first surface and a second surface, the first surface opposite the second surface, wherein the first surface of the substrate (i.e. 100, 700) is disposed over the first surface of each detector of the plurality of detectors (paragraph [0064], referring to detector array, such as CMOS or CCD array, in the focal plane (141); paragraph [0094], referring to camera (1030); Figure 1A, 10);
at least one layer disposed between the substrate and each detector of the plurality of detectors (paragraphs [0057]-[0058], referring to the meta-surface (120) being replaced with a meta-material, multi-layer meta-surfaces, or a diffractive optical element (DOE) that provides the same or similar effective phase profile and referring to the upper surface (112) being defined by or partially or fully covered with a meta-surface that modulates the intensity and/or phase of the incident light, wherein the “multi-layer meta-surfaces” or meta-surface covering the upper surface (112) would comprise multiple layers, wherein one layer can be viewed as corresponding to the “at least one layer” and the other layer(s) can be viewed as corresponding to the “substrate”, such that the at least one layer is disposed between the substrate and the detectors; Figures 1, 10);
a plurality of optical structures (i.e. “sub-wavelength optical structures”) spaced from each other and disposed over the second surface of the substrate, wherein the plurality of optical structures have a pitch and orientation such that a radiation incident from a particular direction is diffracted to the at least one layer based on an angle of diffraction of the radiation (paragraph [0055], referring to the meta-surface including an array of sub-wavelength optical structures that modify the amplitude, phase and/or polarization of incoming wave fronts, wherein the optical structures are arrayed on a lattice with a pitch that is less than or equal to the operating wavelength of the meta lens, wherein the structures/meta-atoms are patterned to provide a desired phase profile over the entire meta-surface; paragraph [0061], referring to the meta-lens with a curved, bent or warped substrate, wherein the incident light is diffracted using the meta-surface from the input aperture to the backside meta-surface [note that this would imply that the radiation is diffracted to the at least one layer of the meta-lens as the radiation is diffracted to the backside meta-surface]; paragraphs [0062]-[0063], referring to the judiciously designed meta-surface phase profile and meta-lens architecture allows diffraction-limited focusing of beams with continuously varying incident angles, and thus a radiation incident from a particular direction can be diffracted to the at least one layer based on an angle of diffraction of the radiation; Figures 1, 10).
With regards to the limitation directed to “the plurality of optical structures have a pitch and orientation such that a radiation incident from a particular direction is diffracted to the at least one layer based on an angle of diffraction of the radiation”, if it not considered clear that the design of the plurality of optical structures provides the claimed pitch and orientation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, through routine experimentation, to modify the pitch and orientation of the plurality of optical structures such that the claimed radiation is achieved, in order to determine the optimal pitch and orientation that provides a desired focusing of the radiation.
With regards to claim 8, Hu et al. disclose that the plurality of optical structures are configured to selectively receive scattered radiation based on an angle of the scattered radiation (Abstract, referring to the meta-lenses which are capable of diffraction-limited focusing and imaging over a greater than 170 degrees angular field of view (FOV); paragraphs [0061]-[0063]).
With regards to claim 10, Hu et al. disclose that the plurality of optical structures are configured to selectively receive scattered radiation based on a wavelength of the scattered radiation (paragraph [0062], referring to the meta-lens designed to operate at a wavelength; paragraphs [0104]-[0105], referring to the meta-lens being designed to possess spectral or polarization filtering properties to block light with certain wavelengths/polarizations).
With regards to claim 12, Hu et al. disclose that the plurality of optical structures are components of meta-lenses, diffractive gratings, or diffractive lenses (Abstract, referring to the meta-surface lenses; paragraph [0055], referring to the meta-surface (120) of the meta-lens (100) including an array of the optical structures, and therefore the optical structures are components of meta-lenses; Figures 1, 10).
With regards to claim 13, Hu et al. disclose that the plurality of optical structures are components of metalenses and wherein the metalenses are flat lenses (Abstract; paragraph [0004], referring to the meta-surface lenses enabling flat and compact individual components; paragraph [0054], referring to the substrate (110) being flat/planar; paragraphs [0100], [0104], referring to the meta-lenses being ultra-thin planar lenses; Figures 1, 10).
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.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Heanue et al. (US Pub No. 2012/0130257).
With regards to claim 2, as discussed above, Hu et al. meet the limitations of claim 1. However, Hu et al. do not specifically disclose the one or more radiation sources and the plurality of detectors are arranged in an interspersed array.
Heanue et al. disclose an optical imaging system using near-infrared light (paragraph [0002]). The system comprises one or more radiation sources (S) and the plurality of detectors (D) arranged in an interspersed array, thereby increasing the coverage area (see Figures 12-13, wherein the detectors (D) are interspersed in the source/detector patterns; paragraph [0098], referring to the multiple sources and/or multiple detectors being arrayed to increase coverage area).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the one or more radiation sources and the plurality of detectors of Hu et al. be arranged in an interspersed array, as taught by Heanue et al., in order to provided an increased coverage area (paragraph [0098]).
With regards to claim 3, as discussed above, Hu et al. meet the limitations of claim 1. However, Hu et al. do not specifically disclose that the DOT device further comprises a controller configured to control an emission of radiation from the one or more radiation sources and receive a plurality of signals indicative of scattered radiation detected by from the plurality of detectors.
Heanue et al. disclose that the DOT device further comprises a controller configured to control an emission of radiation from the one or more sources (paragraph [0035], referring to driving an optical illumination source (3) using a transmit signal conditioner (2) and a signal generator (1); paragraphs [0039], [0044], referring to the acquisition synchronizer (92) controlling signal acquisition and digital data distribution; paragraph [0040], referring to an acquisition synchronizer which synchronizes the signal generator; paragraph [0052]; Figure 1); and receive a plurality of signal indicative of scattered radiation detected by from the plurality of detectors (paragraph [0035], referring to detection optics (6) detecting modulated optical waves (21); paragraphs [0052], [0093]); paragraphs [0039], [0044], referring to the acquisition synchronizer (92) controlling signal acquisition and digital data distribution; Figure 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the DOT device of Hu et al. further comprise a controller configured to control an emission of radiation from the one or more radiation sources and receive a plurality of signals indicative of scattered radiation detected by from the plurality of detectors, as taught by Heanue et al., in order to provide synchronization between the emission of radiation and detection of signals (paragraphs [0039], [0044]).
With regards to claim 4, Heanue et al. disclose that the controller is further configured to process the plurality of signals indicative of the scattered radiation into data (paragraph [0035], referring to the Temporal Response Analysis Engine (11) providing a means for processing a detected optical signal from the sample to extract information about the sample; paragraph [0052], referring to reconstructing an image of the underlying tissue volume using an algorithm; Figure 1).
With regards to claim 5, Heanue et al. disclose that the controller is further configured to solve a reverse scattering problem (paragraph [0051], referring to the tissue being highly scattering, wherein the image reconstruction problem consists of estimating the most likely distribution of dye using techniques for performing such an inversion problem (i.e. reverse scattering problem), wherein the result of the inversion is a volumetric map of the location of dye within the tissue, thus effectively mapping a sentinel node location) and generate an image or other data visualization (paragraphs [0051]-[0052], referring to the image reconstruction and wherein the result of the inversion being a volumetric map of the location of dye within the tissue, wherein the map is displayed in the form of an image).
With regards to claim 6, Heanue et al. disclose that the controller is further configured to process detected scattered radiation into data, compare the data derived from the detected scattered radiation with a plurality of stored data in a data repository, and output a result (paragraphs [0050], [0052], referring to “Scattered optical waves are measured at each corresponding detector. The output of each detector is correlated [and thus compared] with the reference signal [inherently stored as it is a previously acquired signal] as described above to produce a temporal transfer characteristic corresponding to the source-detector combination. The temporal transfer characteristics for each source-detector combination are stored in memory. The process is repeated for each subsequent optical source until temporal transfer characteristics are collected for all desired source-detector pairings. The acquired temporal transfer characteristics are then used to reconstruct an image [i.e. result] of the underlying tissue volume using an algorithm implemented in software”; paragraph [0050], referring to the display/output of the image reconstructed from the measured data).
With regards to claim 7, as discussed above, Hu et al. meet the limitations of claim 1. However, Hu et al. do not specifically disclose that the device further comprises one or more source structures and wherein the one or more radiation sources comprises a second surface opposite a first surface, wherein each of the one or more source structures is disposed over a second surface of each of the one or more radiation sources; and wherein the first surface is disposed over the substrate.
Heanue et al. disclose that the device further comprises one or more source structures (i.e. prisms, lenses, gratings, etc. associated with the sources) and wherein the one or more sources comprises a second surface (i.e. surface closest to the tissue) opposite the first surface, wherein each of the one or more source structures is disposed over a second surface of each of the one or more sources; and wherein the first surface is disposed over the substrate (i.e. see Figures 9, 12 and 20, wherein the “substrate” can be viewed as corresponding to, for example, the imaging head (90)) (paragraphs [0118]-[0119], [0121], [0126], referring to low-cost optical elements interposed between the source of the optical assembly and the tissue, wherein prisms, lenses and other optical elements can bend (diffract), reflect or otherwise change the ordinarily straight path of light; Figures 18-20).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the device of Hu et al. further comprise one or more source structures and wherein the one or more radiation sources comprises a second surface opposite a first surface, wherein each of the one or more source structures is disposed over a second surface of each of the one or more radiation sources; and wherein the first surface is disposed over the substrate, as taught by Heanue et al., in order to provide low-cost optical element that can bend/diffract, reflect or other change the ordinary straight path of light (paragraphs [0118]-[0119], [0121], [0126]).
With regards to claim 9, Heanue et al. disclose that an angle of the scattered radiation ranges from 1 degree to 179 degrees (paragraph [0122], referring to optical elements may bend light by angles in the range of 0 to 89 degrees which is within the claimed range of 1-179 degrees).
With regards to claim 11, Hu et al. disclose that the radiation is near infrared (NIR) radiation or visible light (paragraph [0049], referring to the meta-lens operating at a wide range of wavelengths, from the visible to the infrared (IR)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regards to Hu, Applicant notes that Examiner agreed that the amendments would overcome the current rejection during a telephonic interview.
However, after a closer consideration of Hu, it has been found that Hu does disclose the proposed amendments, including the “at least one layer disposed between the substrate and each detector” and “the plurality of optical structures” as now claimed. Though the previous rejection relied mainly on the embodiment of Hu as depicted in Figure 11, the current rejection now instead relies mainly on the embodiment of Hu as depicted in Figures 1 and 10. Examiner respectfully refers Applicant to the above rejection as to how Hu does appear to teach claim 1, etc..
Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 1 under Heanue as agreed upon during the interview.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Byrnes et al. (US Pub No. 2017/0082263) disclose metalenses including metasurfaces with an array of nanostructures (313), wherein the metasurface (305) is configured to impart a phase change to the secondary light rays incident thereon (Abstract; paragraph [0203]; Figure 3A).
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 KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1957. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM (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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/KATHERINE L FERNANDEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798