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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/27/2024 being considered by the examiner. A copy of initialed form is attached for Applicant’s record.
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.
Claims 1-3, 13, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 20130245406 A1 hereafter Wang).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses an optical microscope, in figure 11, for radiating a laser beam (“Pump Laser”) onto a sample (“Animal”) and observing the sample through an objective lens (“Eyepiece”, “Objective lens”), the optical microscope comprising a transparent ultrasonic transducer (“Ultrasonic transducer”) which radiates ultrasonic waves onto the sample (“Animal”) and through which the laser beam passes (see figure 5).
Regarding claim 2, Wang discloses the optical microscope of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the optical microscope is a non-linear optical microscope including a multi-photon microscope (“multi-photon microscopy”; par.[0088]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang discloses the optical microscope of claim 1. Wang further discloses wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer is positioned between the sample (“Animal”) and the objective lens (“Eyepiece”, “Objective lens”).
Regarding claim 13, Wang discloses, in figure 11, an ultrasonic transducer (“Ultrasonic transducer”)(figure 11) which is used in an optical microscope (1100) for radiating a laser beam (“Pump laser”) onto a sample (“Animal”) and observing the sample through an objective lens (“Eyepiece”, “Objective lens”), generates ultrasonic waves to radiate the generated ultrasonic waves onto the sample (“Animal”), and allows the laser beam to be transmitted (figure 5, laser 1 transmitted thru ultrasonic transducer 4).
Regarding claim 14, Wang discloses the transparent ultrasonic transducer of claim 13. Wang further discloses wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer is positioned between the sample (“Animal”) and the objective lens ( “Eyepiece” or “Objective lens”)(figure 11).
Regarding claim 18, Wang discloses the transparent ultrasonic transducer of claim 13. Wang further discloses an acoustic lens that allows acoustic focusing of the ultrasonic waves to be performed with respect to the sample (par.[0038]).
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.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20130245406 A1 hereafter Wang), as applied to claim 1, in view of Jiang (US 20240016389).
Regarding claim 5, Wang discloses the optical microscope of claim 1 with said ultrasonic transducer. However, Wang does not disclose wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer includes: a transparent piezoelectric material; a matching layer positioned outside the transparent piezoelectric material to face the sample; and a glass slide positioned outside the transparent piezoelectric material to face the objective lens. Jiang is in same field of endeavor and teaches, in figure 3 and 4, wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer (22) includes: a transparent piezoelectric material ([0015]); a matching layer (20) positioned outside the transparent piezoelectric material to face the sample; and a glass slide (26) positioned outside the transparent piezoelectric material to face the objective lens ([0009],[0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Jiang to device of Wang for purpose of forming light-transmissible ultrasonic transducer.
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Jiang discloses the optical microscope of claim 5. Jiang further discloses wherein the glass slide (26) includes a curved surface that allows focusing of the laser beam to be adjusted with respect to the sample (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 7, Wang discloses the optical microscope of claim 1 with said ultrasonic transducer. However, Wang does not disclose wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer includes a glass slide having a curved surface that allows focusing of the laser beam to be adjusted with respect to the sample. Jiang is in same field of endeavor and teaches, in figure 3 and 4, wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer (22) includes a glass slide (26) having a curved surface that allows focusing of the laser beam to be adjusted with respect to the sample ([0009], [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Jiang to device of Wang for purpose of forming light-transmissible ultrasonic transducer.
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20130245406 A1 hereafter Wang), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Qiu et al.(CN 116237224 A).
Regarding claim 10, Wang discloses the optical microscope of claim 5. Neither Wang does not disclose wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer further includes an acoustic lens that allows acoustic focusing of the ultrasonic waves to be performed with respect to the sample. Qiu is in same field of endeavor and teaches , in figures 1-4, wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer further includes an acoustic lens that allows acoustic focusing of the ultrasonic waves to be performed with respect to the sample (Abstract, par.[0024], [0039], [0042]; see also claim 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Qiu to device of Wang for purpose of forming light-transmissible ultrasonic transducer.
Regarding claim 12, Wang in view of Qiu discloses the optical microscope of claim 1, except for the shape of said ultrasonic transducer is curvature. However, applicant presents no discussion to convince examiner such curvature shape has any technical advance over other shapes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use any shape in design of an transducer where simple modification of shape has been held per se obvious (MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, there is no evidence provided that there is any criticality or unexpected result occurring at such a difference, and appears to only be a preferred shape or size of device.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 20130245406 A1 hereafter Wang) in view of Jiang (US 20240016389) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Qiu et al.(CN 116237224 A).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Jiang discloses the optical microscope of claim 5. Neither Wang nor Jiang discloses wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer further includes an acoustic lens that allows acoustic focusing of the ultrasonic waves to be performed with respect to the sample. Qiu is in same field of endeavor and teaches , in figures 1-4, wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer further includes an acoustic lens that allows acoustic focusing of the ultrasonic waves to be performed with respect to the sample (Abstract, par.[0024], [0039], [0042]; see also claim 8). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Qiu to device of Wang and Jiang for purpose of forming light-transmissible ultrasonic transducer.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 13 above, in view of Jiang (US 20240016389).
Regarding claim 15, Wang discloses the optical microscope of claim 1 with said ultrasonic transducer with a matching layer ([0048]). However, Wang does not disclose wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer includes: a transparent piezoelectric material; a matching layer positioned outside the transparent piezoelectric material to face the sample; and a glass slide positioned outside the transparent piezoelectric material to face the objective lens. Jiang is in same field of endeavor and teaches, in figure 3 and 4, wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer (22) includes: a transparent piezoelectric material ([0015]); a matching layer (20) positioned outside the transparent piezoelectric material to face the sample; and a glass slide (26) positioned outside the transparent piezoelectric material to face the objective lens ([0009],[0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Jiang to device of Wang for purpose of forming light-transmissible ultrasonic transducer.
Regarding claim 16, Wang in view of Jiang discloses the optical microscope of claim 15 (see Wang figure 5). Jiang further discloses wherein the glass slide (26) includes a curved surface that allows focusing of the laser beam to be adjusted with respect to the sample (see figure 4).
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses the optical microscope of claim 1 with said ultrasonic transducer. However, Wang does not disclose wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer includes a glass slide having a curved surface that allows focusing of the laser beam to be adjusted with respect to the sample. Jiang is in same field of endeavor and teaches, in figure 3 and 4, wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer (22) includes a glass slide (26) having a curved surface that allows focusing of the laser beam to be adjusted with respect to the sample ([0009], [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to apply teachings of Jiang to device of Wang for purpose of forming light-transmissible ultrasonic transducer.
9. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang, as applied to claim 13 above.
Regarding claim 20, Wang discloses the optical microscope of claim 1, except for the shape of said ultrasonic transducer is curvature. However, applicant presents no discussion to convince examiner such curvature shape has any technical advance over other shapes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use any shape in design of an transducer where simple modification of shape has been held per se obvious (MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, there is no evidence provided that there is any criticality or unexpected result occurring at such a difference, and appears to only be a preferred shape or size of device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9, 11 and 19 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: (claim 4) wherein the transparent ultrasonic transducer comprises a plurality of transparent ultrasonic transducer, and wherein the plurality of transparent ultrasonic transducers are arrayed in a phased array method to change the focusing position of the laser beam along a thickness of the sample; (claim 9, 11, 19) wherein the acoustic lens includes an acoustic hole through which the laser beam passes.
/TUYEN TRA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872