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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “Raman spectroscopic analysis module”, “OCT module”, “co-localization module”, “proximal scanning sub-module”, “remote scanning sub-module”, and “image processing module” in claims 1-3, 7-9, 11-15, 17, 18, and 20.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Para 12-13 teaches “Raman spectroscopic analysis module” and “OCT module” and hardware structures.
Para 034 teaches “co-localization module” is a hardware structure.
Para 024 teaches “proximal scanning sub-module” is a hardware structure.
Para 027 teaches “remote scanning sub-module” is a hardware structure.
Para 0187 teaches “image processing module” is a hardware processor for image processing.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 17, 19, and 20, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1/a2 as being anticipated by U. S. Publication No. 2013/0137944 to Jeong et al.
Regarding Claim 1, Jeong teaches a multi-modal imaging device based on Raman spectroscopy and optical coherence tomography, comprising: a Raman spectroscopic analysis module, configured to obtain Raman spectroscopic information of a target object at a first sampling position by using excitation light; an optical coherence tomography module, configured to obtain at least one two-dimensional tissue structure image of the target object at a second sampling position by using imaging detection light (fig. 1 teaches OCT and Raman spectroscopic module); and a co-localization module, configured to control at least one of the first sampling position of the excitation light in the Raman spectroscopic analysis module or the second sampling position in the optical coherence tomography module according to a determined concerned area of the target object, so that the first sampling position and the second sampling position are spatially co-localized in the determined concerned area, wherein the co-localization module is further configured to: control the first sampling position of the excitation light in the Raman spectroscopic analysis module to move to overlap with the determined concerned area, and perform imaging detection on the determined concerned area by using the optical coherence tomography module, so that the first sampling position and the second sampling position are spatially co-localized in the determined concerned area (para 053, 066, 070, and fig. 1 element 30 teaches a optical unit [localization module] for performing RS and OCT imaging on the same target region); or control the second sampling position in the optical coherence tomography module to move to overlap with the determined concerned area, and analyze and detect the determined concerned area by using the Raman spectroscopic analysis module, so that the first sampling position and the second sampling position are spatially co-localized in the determined concerned area (para 052-053, 066, 096); or control the first sampling position and the second sampling position at least one of simultaneously or synchronously to scan, analyze and detect the determined concerned area, so that the first sampling position and the second sampling position are spatially co-localized in the determined concerned area (para 053, 070; fig. 1 element 30 teaches a optical unit [localization module] for performing RS and OCT imaging on the same target region).
Regarding Claim 2, Jeong teaches that the multi-modal imaging device comprises a probe provided with a shell and a detection window and configured to detect the target object, and the excitation light from the Raman spectroscopic analysis module and the imaging detection light from the optical coherence tomography module are coupled in the probe (fig. 1 and para 019, 024 teaches a probe with combined RS, OCT imaging module in a probe).
Regarding Claim 17, Jeong teaches that the co-localization module is configured to move the first sampling position to overlap with a position of the determined concerned area (para 0130 teaches overlap with target area).
Regarding Claim 19, Jeong teaches that the multi-modal imaging device is an endoscope (para 006 and 054 teaches the probe is an endoscope).
Regarding Claim 20, Jeong teaches an image processing module configured to fuse the Raman spectroscopic information of the first sampling position and the at least one two-dimensional tissue structure image of the second sampling position, which are spatially co-localized, so as to generate fused multi-modal information of the determined concerned area (para 0127 and claim 1 teaches generating a combined fused image).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-16 and 18 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: the closest prior art of record are U. S. Publication No. 2013/0137944 to Jeong et al.; U. S. Patent No. 8,553,219 to Patil et al.; and U. S. Publication No. 2009/0021724 to Mahadevan-Jansen et al.; none of the prior art alone or in combination teaches that the Raman spectroscopic analysis module comprises a first light source, a first beam splitting mirror, a first coupling objective lens, a first optical fiber, a spectrometer, a first lens group, and a first dichroscope; the first beam splitting mirror is configured to transmit the excitation light from the first light source and reflect Raman spectroscopy scattering signal light from the target object; the spectrometer is configured to receive the Raman spectroscopy scattering signal light from the target object reflected by the first beam splitting mirror; the first coupling objective lens is configured to receive emergent light from the first beam splitting mirror or the co-localization module; the first optical fiber is configured to receive emergent light from the first coupling objective lens; the first lens group is configured to receive emergent light from the first optical fiber, wherein the first lens group comprises a collective lens; and the first dichroscope is configured to receive and transmit emergent light from the first lens group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANJAY CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)272-1306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/SANJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798