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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: In line 8, “the fiber optic waveguide” should be “a fiber optic waveguide” In line 11, “a fiber optic waveguide” should be “the fiber optic waveguide” Appropriate correction is required. 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 appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 11 and 20 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 11 recites the limitation "the output arm" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the output arm” will be interpreted as “an output arm.” Claim 20 recites the limitation "the fiber optic wavelength sensor" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, “the fiber optic wavelength sensor” will be interpreted as “the fiber optic waveguide” of claim 1. 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. Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsamir et al (US 2017/0231563) in view of Blumenfeld et al (US 2010/0241100) . Regarding claim 1 , Tsamir discloses: A fiber optic sensor retraction system (150; Figs. 13A, 13B) comprising: a retraction system (see Image 1 below) having a distal end and a proximal end; a hollow needle (151; ¶0139) located at the distal end of the retraction system; an opening ( opening connected to syringe 152) at the proximal end of the retraction system that is configured to receive medical fluids through a fluid channel (¶0165, 0212) , a spring housing (200 , equivalent to element 156; Figs. 15A, 15B) connected between the distal and proximal ends of the retraction system; a spring (219) disposed within the spring housing (200) that is in mechanical communication with a probe (205) , and wherein the spring (219) has a compressed position (Fig. 15B) and a expanded position (Fig. 15A) ; a probe system (205) that is at least partially contained within the hollow needle (151, equivalent to needle 202) , when the spring (219) is in the compressed position (Fig. 15B) , and extends through a Y-junction (Image 1) ; and a syringe (152) configured to contain a medical fluid (¶0212) , wherein the syringe (152) is in fluid communication with the Y-junction (Image 1) . Image 1. Annotated portion of Fig. 13B Tsamir discloses all of the elements of the claim but is silent regarding the probe being “an optical system, wherein the optical system comprises a fiber optic waveguide … wherein the fiber optic waveguide is configured to allow entry of an emitted light from a biomarker luminescent material at a bevel of the hollow needle.” However, Blumenfeld teaches a site-specific probe system (Abstract) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, that uses an optical system (Fig. 1) using a fiber optic waveguide (3) that is fully capable of allowing entry of an emitted light from a biomarker luminescent material (¶0026) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tsamir to incorporate an optical system with a fiber optic waveguide as taught by Blumenfeld in order to provide sufficient structure to use fluorescent responses to target tissue, as recognized by Blumenfeld. Regarding claim 2 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, wherein the spring (219) is a retraction spring (¶0223) , the hollow needle (151) is in fluid communication with the Y-junction (Fig. 13A) , and the fluid channel is comprised of a first input arm ( where element 156 is connected ) , a second input arm ( where syringe 152 is connected ) , and an output arm ( where needle 151 is connected ) , wherein the spring housing (200) is connected to the first input arm (¶0213) . Regarding claim 3 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses the fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 2, wherein the fiber optic waveguide taught by Blumenfeld in the rejection of claim 1 is located within a lumen of the fluid channel ( Tsamir ; Fig. 15A) and further comprises at least an optical fiber as taught by Blumenfeld in the rejection of claim 1 . Regarding claim 4 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, further comprising a retraction trigger (220; ¶0221) disposed on the spring housing (200) and in mechanical communication with the spring (219) . Regarding claim 6 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, further comprising a medical fluid within the syringe (152; ¶0212) , wherein the syringe (152) is configured to deliver the medical fluid through the fluid channel to a biological system (¶0212) . Regarding claim 7 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses the fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, wherein the optical system taught by Blumenfeld in the rejection of claim 1 is configured to simultaneously deliver light to the biomarker luminescent material (Blumenfeld, ¶0023) and transmits the emitted light from the biomarker luminescent material (Blumenfeld, ¶0024) . Regarding claim 8 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, wherein the proximal end comprises a luer lock (¶0230) configured to receive the syringe (152) . Regarding claim 11 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, wherein the retraction system (Image 1) when configured with the compressed spring (219) has the optical fiber (taught by Blumenfeld in the rejection of claim 1) located within a lumen of the output arm (Fig. 15B) , and when configured with the expanded spring (Fig. 15A) allows a medical fluid to flow through the fluid channel and into the hollow needle (¶0230) . Regarding claim 12 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, wherein the spring is at least one of a helical coil (Fig. 15A) , solenoid based, disc, Belleville washer, wave spring or any combination thereof. Regarding claim 13 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, wherein a spring recoil rate is preselected based on a spring tension (¶0162 – the spring and its properties are selected in order to have sufficient extension and compression within the system ) . Regarding claim 14 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, wherein the proximal end of the retraction system contains a luer lock (¶0230) configured to connect with the syringe (152) . Regarding claim 15 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, further comprises a barrel (212) connected to the optical fiber (taught by Blumenfeld in the rejection of claim 1) , wherein the optical fiber (taught by Blumenfeld in the rejection of claim 1) has a smaller diameter than the barrel (212) . Regarding claim 16 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, wherein the spring housing (200) is configured to house the spring (219) and at least a portion of the optical fiber (taught by Blumenfeld in the rejection of claim 1) . Regarding claim 18 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: The fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1, wherein a pin (214) holds the spring (219) in the compressed position (Fig. 15B) . Regarding claim 19 , Tsamir discloses: A fiber optic fluid delivery device (Fig. 13A) comprising: a fluidic delivery system (150) comprising a delivery device (152) , the delivery device (152) having a distal end, wherein the fluidic delivery system (150) is configured to detect a target biomarker in a biological system wherein the fluidic delivery system is in contact with the target biomarker (¶0144) , and wherein the delivery device (152) includes a lumen and a fluid channel ( channel connecting syringe 152 to needle 151) ; and a detection system (154) in communication with the target biomarker (¶0149) . Tsamir discloses all of the elements of the claim but is silent regarding “the detection system detects bioluminescent light for determining the presence of the target biomarker.” However, Blumenfeld teaches a site-specific probe system (Abstract) , thus being in the same field of endeavor, that uses an optical system (Fig. 1) using a fiber optic waveguide (3) that is fully capable of allowing entry of an emitted light from a biomarker luminescent material (¶0026) . It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tsamir to incorporate an optical system with a fiber optic waveguide as taught by Blumenfeld in order to provide sufficient structure to use fluorescent responses to target tissue, as recognized by Blumenfeld. Regarding claim 20 , Tsamir in view of Blumenfeld discloses: A method of retracting a fiber optic sensor system comprising: providing a fiber optic sensor retraction system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1) ; inserting the needle (151) containing the fiber optic wavelength sensor (taught by Blumenfeld in the rejection of claim 1) into a patient; using the fiber optic wavelength sensor to properly place the needle (Blumenfeld, ¶0022) ; retracting the fiber optic wavelength sensor (Blumenfeld, ¶0024) ; and administering medical fluids through the hollow needle (¶0230) . Allowable Subject Matter Claims 5, 9, 10, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-9536 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-5pm 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Bhisma Mehta can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-3383 . 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. /TASNIM MEHJABIN AHMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783