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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
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.
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) 1 – 10 and 16 – 17 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being anticipated by Iyoki (JP 2019 – 28034 A, cited in the IDS) and further in view of Hirano (JP 58 – 137723 A, see provided a translation copy).
With respect to independent claim 1, Iyoki teaches in Fig. 3 a sensor tip 120 for being coupled to an end of an optical fiber 200, wherein the sensor tip comprises: a thermoplastic resin in paragraph [0018], and a scintillator material in paragraph [0018] but Iyoki is silent with a scintillator material dispersed throughout substantially the entire sensor tip.
Hirano, a pertinent art, teaches a scintillator material 2 dispersed throughout substantially the entire sensor tip which is coupled to an end of an optical fiber 1 and in view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iyoki in order to increase detection efficiencies (by increasing S/N ratio). This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Iyoki teaches in Fig. 10(c) wherein a first area of a first intersection between the sensor tip and a first plane perpendicular to a direction from a first end to a second end of the sensor tip, at the first end of the sensor tip, is larger than a second area of a second intersection between the sensor tip and a second plane perpendicular to said direction, at the second end of the sensor tip.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Iyoki teaches in Fig. 10 (b) wherein the sensor tip substantially has a shape of at least part of a cone.
With respect to dependent claims 4 – 5, Iyoki teaches in Fig. 10(c) wherein the sensor tip substantially has a shape of at least part of a truncated cone and wherein a radius of a base of the truncated cone is from 5% to 50% larger than a radius of a top surface of the truncated cone.
With respect to dependent claim 6, Iyoki teaches in paragraph [0020] wherein the scintillator material comprises an inorganic crystalline material doped with cerium, terbium or europium, preferably terbium or europium.
With respect to dependent claim 7, Iyoki teaches in paragraph [0016] wherein the thermoplastic resin is a poly(methyl)methacrylate.
With respect to dependent claim 8, Hirano teaches in Fig. 4 wherein the scintillator material is dispersed substantially uniformly throughout substantially the entire sensor tip.
With respect to dependent claim 9, Iyoki teaches in Fig. 1 an optical probe comprising: an optical fiber, and a sensor tip according to claim 1, coupled to an end of the optical fiber.
With respect to dependent claim 10, Iyoki teaches in Fig. 10(c) wherein the sensor is a truncated cone having a base that faces the optical fiber.
With respect to dependent claim 16, Iyoki is silent with wherein the sensor tip comprises a core region defined along a central axis from a first end to a second end of the sensor tip, and an outer region outside the core region, wherein the core region and the outer region each contain part of the scintillator material. However, Hirano teaches this limitation in Fig. 4. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iyoki modified by Hirano in order to fabricate an optical sensor that could be applied in a specific point or area by designing a tip of desired sensor tip.
With respect to dependent claim 17, the limitation of “wherein the core region forms a truncated cone with a radius that is half that of the sensor tip” would be obvious design choice available within the ordinary skilled art.
Claim(s) 11, 13, and15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyoki modified by Hirano, and further in view of Ding (2020, EJNMMI Physics, cited in the IDS).
The teaching of Iyoki modified by Hirano has been discussed above.
With respect to independent claim 15, Iyoki teaches a sensor tip, but is silent with a setup for forming a sensor tip, comprising at least one mould adapted for receiving a mixture, wherein the setup is configured for moulding said sensor tip in the at least one mould.
Iyoki is silent with wherein the setup comprises a top and bottom part, wherein the top part is fixedly mounted the bottom part.
Hirano teaches in Fig. 4 this limitation. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iyoki in order to form desired optical sensor by a known method. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Ding, a pertinent art, teaches a molding method on p. 8. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iyoki modified by Hirano in order to fabricate desired sensor by a known method. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
With respect to independent claim 11, as discussed above Iyoki modified by Hirano and Ding teaches a method for forming a sensor tip comprising: obtaining a mixture comprising a scintillator material and a thermoplastic resin, moulding the mixture so as to form the sensor tip wherein the scintillator material is dispersed throughout substantially the entire sensor tip.
With respect to dependent claim 13, Iyoki modified by Hirano teaches in Fig. 10 (a) method for forming an optical probe, comprising: forming a sensor tip using the method in accordance with claim 11 and coupling the sensor tip to an end of an optical fiber.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyoki modified by Hirano and Ding, and further in view of Stanton (WO 2013/184204 A2 cited in the IDS).
The teaching of Iyoki modified by Hirano and Ding has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 12, Iyoki is silent with wherein moulding the mixture comprises: moulding said mixture so as to form a disc, and transfer moulding so as to form the sensor tip from said disc.
In Fig. 8A, Stanton, a pertinent art, teaches forming the sensor tip from a disc. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iyoki modified by Hirano and Ding in order to fabricate desired sensor tip by a known method. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iyoki modified by Hirano and Ding, and further in view of Suzuki (KR 20027007803 A).
The teaching of Iyoki modified by Ding has been discussed above.
With respect to dependent claim 14, Iyoki is silent with wherein said coupling comprises: applying a radiation curable resin, to a surface of the sensor tip or the end of the optical fiber, contacting the radiation curable resin on said surface with the end of the optical fiber or the sensor tip, respectively, and exposing the radiation curable resin to radiation so as to cure said radiation curable resin.
Suzuki, a pertinent art, teaches a scintillator applied by UV curable resin. In view of this, it would be obvious at the time of the claimed invention was filed to modify the teaching of Iyoki modified by Ding in order to improve bonding in fabricating sensor tips. This is in consistency with the Supreme Court Decision of the KSR. V. International Co.: applying a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Allowable Subject Matter
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIHO KIM, Ph.D. whose telephone number is (571)270-1628. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8-5 EST.
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, David Makiya can be reached at (571)272-2273. 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.
KIHO KIM, Ph.D.
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2884
/Kiho Kim/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2884