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 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9 recites the following:
The cancer treatment system according to claim 8,
wherein the mist generator includes a spray nozzle.
the imaging optics relays the spatial image near an outlet of the spray nozzle.
This should be changed to:
The cancer treatment system according to claim 8,
wherein the mist generator includes a spray nozzle
the imaging optics relays the spatial image near an outlet of the spray nozzle.
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 applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 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 1 is described as “a near-infrared spot light source” in the preamble. This appears implying a structure that includes a light source of some type. However, no element recited in claim 1 is a light source or emitter. Nor, is a spatial image positively recited, as only the optics that can relay the spatial image is being required. While, the element of “an imaging optics which relays a spatial image in near an outlet of the mist generator” could potentially include a light source, given these facts under broadest reasonable interpretation imaging optics that relay a spatial image doesn’t require a light source as any broadly claimed optic (i.e. a lens, mirror, deflector) that can direct light and/or an image (i.e. understood to be a formation of light) recites the limitation. This raises questions as to whether or not the imaging optics (and thereby the near infrared spot light source) actually contains a near infrared light source or not. For this examination, the interpretation taken is that a near infrared light source is not required as this is the broadest interpretation. Regardless applicant should make it clear what is being claimed here. Additionally, claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by dependency on claim 1.
Additionally, claim 1 recites the limitation:
“an imaging optics which relays a spatial image in near an outlet of the mist generator"
First, it’s not clear if the claim is reciting that the optics or the spatial image is in near the mist generator. Second “in near” appears to be a typo missing one or more words. This raises questions as to what this limitation is claiming making the metes and bounds of this limitation and thereby claim 1 as indefinite. For this examination, the interpretation taken is that the claim is reciting that specifically the spatial image is “in or near” the outlet as this is the broadest interpretation. Regardless applicant should make it clear what is being claimed here. Additionally, claims 2-10 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by dependency on claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takehisa et al (US 20210283416) hereafter known as Takehisa.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 1:
A near-infrared spot light source [see Fig. 1 elements 101 and 102 and para 29… “The laser beam L1 emitted from the oxygen laser oscillator 101 passes a focusing lens 102”] comprising:
a mist generator which generates the mist of solution of basic hydrogen peroxide [see Fig. 4 element 120 (i.e. mist generator) and para 33… “The oxygen laser oscillator 101 has a laser cavity 110 and a singlet oxygen generator (SOG) 120.” And para 38… “The SOG 120 has a BHP tank 123. Hydrogen peroxide 121 and potassium hydroxide 122 are supplied to the BHP tank 123 and then are mixed to be a BHP solution 123a in the BHP tank 123.”], and
an imaging optics which relays a spatial image in near an outlet of the mist generator [see Figs. 1 and 3-4 elements 112, 113 and 102 (i.e. imaging optics through which a spatial image is passed through) which are near elements 114 and 115 (i.e. outlet of mist generator) which are parts of element 120 (i.e. mist generator) and para 35… “A total reflection mirror 112 is attached at one end of the laser cavity 110. An output mirror 113 is attached at the other end of the laser cavity 110. The total reflection mirror 112 has 99.9% reflectivity at the wavelength of 1.27 micrometer. The output mirror 113 has 99.0% reflectivity at the wavelength of 1.27 micrometer. The laser beam L1 is extracted from the output mirror 113 in an extraction direction (rightward direction).” And para 29… “The oxygen laser oscillator 101 is a light source for generating a laser beam L1 having a wavelength of 1.27 um. The oxygen laser oscillator 101 is placed outside the patient. The laser beam L1 emitted from the oxygen laser oscillator 101 passes a focusing lens 102”]
Regarding claims 2-4: See Fig. 4 element 115 and 128 and para 35-44 of Takehisa [see “A vacuum pump 114 is connected to the laser cavity 110 through a valve 115” and “A chlorine gas cylinder 127 is connected to the SOG housing 111 through a valve 128. The chlorine gas cylinder 127 is filled with a chlorine gas 127a.” and “In order to generate singlet oxygen, the valve 128 is opened. Then the chlorine gas 127a is supplied into the SOG housing 111.”] which describe channels with valves 115 and 128 that are interpreted as a spray nozzle as recited by claim 2. These sections also describe the nozzle as being a two-fluid nozzle with the solution and chlorine gas being supplied which recites claims 3-4.
Regarding claim 8
Takehisa discloses:
A cancer treatment system [see Fig. 1 element 100 and para 29… “the cancer treatment system 100 according to the present invention”] comprising:
a near-infrared spot light source according to claim 1 [see rejection to claim 1 above],
wherein the imaging optics converges the light emitted from the near-infrared spot generator to cancer cells [see Fig. 1 which shows L1 being focused by 102 and then additional elements to reach element 105 (i.e. cancer cells) and see para 29-31… “After the laser beam (laser beam L5) goes through the skin, it is most strongly focused at a cancer cell 105.”].
Regarding claim 9:
wherein the mist generator includes a spray nozzle [see Fig. 4 element 115 and 128 and para 35-44 of Takehisa [see “A vacuum pump 114 is connected to the laser cavity 110 through a valve 115” and “A chlorine gas cylinder 127 is connected to the SOG housing 111 through a valve 128. The chlorine gas cylinder 127 is filled with a chlorine gas 127a.” and “In order to generate singlet oxygen, the valve 128 is opened. Then the chlorine gas 127a is supplied into the SOG housing 111.” which describe channels with valves 115 and 128 that are interpreted as a spray nozzle]
the imaging optics relays the spatial image near an outlet of the spray nozzle [see Figs. 1 and 3-4 which shows elements 112 and 113 (i.e. part of the imaging optics that direct a spatial image) being near elements the passage between element 110 and element 115 (i.e. outlet of spray nozzle)].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehisa in view of Kawasaki et al (US 20220176401) hereafter known as Kawasaki.
Takehisa discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claims 1 and 8 which includes a mist generator with a cup filled with the solution [see Fig. 4 element 111 and para 33… “a SOG housing 111”].
However, Takehisa uses a rotation disk to rotate and mix the solution [see Fig. 4 element 125 and para 34… “A plurality of rotating disks 125 are provided in the housing 111. The rotating disks 125 can rotate around a rotation axis 126.”] instead of an ultrasonic vibrator. Thus, Takehisa fails to disclose “wherein the mist generator includes an ultrasonic vibrator” as recited by claims 5 and 10 and “a vibration surface of the ultrasonic vibrator is immersed in the solution” or “the imaging optics relays the spatial image near the vibration surface” as recited by claims 6 and 10.
Kawasaki discloses in the analogous art devices that supply and/or deliver hydrogen peroxide-based solutions [see para 50… “In the mist supply device according to each of the following embodiments, a decontamination agent used is a hydrogen peroxide solution.”] placing an ultrasonic vibrator [see Fig. 3 element 131c] with a vibrational surface [see outer surface of Fig. 3 element 131c] in a cup [see Fig. 3 element 131b] of a hydrogen peroxide solution to subject the hydrogen peroxide solution to ultrasonic vibration [see para 66… “a main container 131b for accommodating a hydrogen peroxide solution supplied from the outside and including a mist discharge port 131a, and an ultrasonic vibrator 131c disposed therein. Ultrasonic vibration of the ultrasonic vibrator 131c immersed in a hydrogen peroxide solution in this state converts the hydrogen peroxide solution into a primary mist as a hydrogen peroxide solution mist 132 to supply the same to the mist refining device 140.”] for the purpose of creating uniform mixtures [see para 96… “In fact, since the fine mists 33a, 33b are further refined by ultrasonic vibration to have smaller particle sizes and larger surface areas, it is believed that the evaporation efficiency of mists is high, resulting in repeated evaporation and condensation. The fine mists 33a, 33b are highly-refined mists to form a uniform and thin condensed film on an internal wall surface of the isolator 400. Therefore, as opposed to conventional decontamination operations, no partial, uneven or thick condensed film is formed on the internal wall surface of the isolator 400.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Takehisa by replacing Takehisa’s cup with rotation disk with a cup with hydrogen peroxide in which an ultrasonic vibrator with a vibrational surface is placed that vibrates the solution similarly to that disclosed by Kawasaki (i.e. thereby reciting claims 5-6 and 10) for the purpose of forming a more uniform mixture of mist which one of ordinary skill would expect to further improve the uniformity of the resulting singlet oxygen gas leading to improved light therapy.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takehisa in view of Kohno et al (US 20030035091) hereafter known as Kohno.
Takehisa discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 including imaging optics with a configuration that includes a focusing lens that is understood to recite a condenser lens and that the condensing of light provides the advantage of helping direct light to optical fibers [see Figs. 1 element 102 respectively And para 29 “The laser beam L1 emitted from the oxygen laser oscillator 101 passes a focusing lens 102, which focuses the laser beam L1 at the input end of an optical fiber 106.” And para 12… “In particular, by using a laser beam oscillated from an oxygen molecule as the 1.27 um wavelength radiation, unlike the spontaneous emission light, the light condensing property of light condensed by the condenser lens can be enhanced. Therefore, it becomes easy for light to enter the optical fiber, and flexible transmission using the optical fiber becomes possible.”].
However, Takehisa fails to fully disclose: “wherein the imaging optics includes a spheroidal mirror”, “a condenser lens located inside the spheroidal mirror” or “wherein the spheroidal mirror and the condenser lens converge the light emitted from the near-infrared spot light source” as recited by claim 7.
Kohno discloses in the analogous art of optical systems [see abstract… “A light producing apparatus for irradiating a beam from a light source to a target to produce light having a wavelength different from the beam includes a first condensing optical system for condensing the beam from the light source, and an imaging optical system for imaging onto the target under a demagnification a condensing point of the beam by the first condensing optical system.”] that using spheroidal mirrors in conjugation with a lens to help minimize illumination distribution changes [see Fig. 9 element 5A and para 68… “the exposure apparatus 100C uses a condensing mirror system 5A in place of the condensing mirror system 5. The condensing mirror system 5A includes a plurality of mirrors (G1, G2, G3, and G4), illuminating the reticle 9 from different angles as well as forming a common illumination area on the reticle 9. An application of this invention to such an optical system would minimize illumination distribution changes (mainly uneven illuminance in this case) on the reticle 9 caused by the positional change of the light emission point Pt. Here, the condenser mirror system 5A may use a spheroidal mirror, which is divided into multiple mirrors, as shown in FIG. 9.”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time to modify Takehisa by including spheroidal mirrors as part of the imaging optics optically coupled Takehisa’s condenser lens similarly to that disclosed by Kohno because such a system will minimize illumination distribution changes.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Takehisa in view of Kohno by placing the condenser lens inside the spheroidal mirrors (i.e. thereby reciting “a condenser lens located inside the spheroidal mirror”, “wherein the spheroidal mirror and the condenser lens converge the light emitted from the near-infrared spot light source” and “wherein the spheroidal mirror and the condenser lens converge the light emitted from the near-infrared spot light source”) because there are a limited number of places the spheroidal mirror can be positioned relative to condenser lens (i.e. spheroidal mirror in front of condenser lens, spheroidal mirror behind condenser lens or spheroidal mirror surrounding condenser lens) and this is one of those limited positions.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792