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 20 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 20 is missing a period at the end of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: “at least one light-reflecting member configured to” in claims 1-8 and 10-18 and “an electric and/or magnetic field creating element configured to” in claims 16-17.
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.
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 § 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 1-20 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.
The term “substantial part” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantial” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “substantial” is a relative term for which the upper and lower bounds have not been defined. The specification fails to disclose what is considered “a substantial part” of said emitted light.
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.
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, 2, 6-9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi (2007/0187632) in view of McKenna et al (2012/0197133).
Regarding claims 1, 2 and 9, Igarashi discloses a system for light measurements in a subject, said system comprising:
at least one ultrasound transducer (ultrasound transducer 257b – [0865]; fig.72);
at least one laser configured for emitting light within a wavelength-range of visible light ([0658]);
at least one optical filter (optical filter 252d – [0835]; fig.72);
at least one light detector (optical detector 204a – [0835]; fig.72); and
wherein said ultrasound transducer is configured for directing at least one ultrasound field with at least one ultrasound frequency to at least one location inside a tissue site of said subject (fig. 72); said laser is configured for directing light with at least one light frequency into said tissue site of said subject (fig.72); said at least one optical filter (252d) is arranged before said at least one light detector (204a) for suppressing said light frequency but transmitting light with at least one light frequency that is frequency-shifted by said ultrasound frequency (fig.72); said at least one light detector detecting said light that is frequency-shifted by said ultrasound frequency (extracted Doppler-shift frequency component is inputted to the optical detector 204a – [0867]).
Igarashi fail to explicitly disclose at least one light-reflecting member configured to be arranged on a surface of said tissue site of said subject to reflect a substantial part of said emitted light exiting said tissue site and/or said light that is frequency-shifted, thereby increasing the amount of light being detected by said detector, wherein said at least one light reflecting member consists of at least one of a glass or metal mirror.
However, McKenna et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, at least one light-reflecting member configured to be arranged on a surface of a tissue site of a subject to reflect a substantial part of emitted light exiting said tissue site, thereby increasing an amount of light being detected by a detector, wherein said at least one light reflecting member consists of at least one of a glass or metal mirror (the optical detector 20 may be an interferometry device. The interferometer may use a thin film and an optical fiber, the thin film may be a mirror reflective coating on the other side (e.g., 110% reflective that forms the mirrors of the interferometer – [0020]; fig.1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the optical fiber and at least one light detector of Igarashi with the at least one light-reflecting member configured to be arranged on a surface of said tissue site of said subject to reflect a substantial part of said emitted light exiting said tissue site as it would provide the emitted light exiting said tissue site to the detector.
Regarding claim 6, Igarashi discloses wherein said at least one location inside said tissue site is occupied by at least one ultrasound field, and said laser is configured to direct light into said tissue site so that at least a portion of the emitted light passes through said location (pulsed ultrasound waves 207 and pulsed light beams 236 to focal point – fig.72).
Regarding claim 7, Igarashi discloses wherein said frequency-shifted light carries information only from said at least one location inside said tissue site (information is from focus point F – fig.72).
Regarding claim 8, Igarashi discloses wherein at least one laser and one ultrasound transducer are configured for scanning at least one location to attain an image of an optical contrast inside said tissue site (claim 9).
Regarding claim 20, Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. McKenna et al further teaches wherein a map or image of an optical contrast inside said tissue site provides information about the oxygen saturation in said tissue site (wherein the physiologic measurement comprises a hemoglobin concentration or an oxygen saturation – claim 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the image of an optical contrast inside said tissue site with oxygen saturation of McKenna et al as it would provide the user with the physiological help of the blood vessels.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi (2007/0187632) in view of McKenna et al (2012/0197133) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wang et al (2006/0184042).
Regarding claims 3-5, Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one light-reflecting member is configured to be arranged around an injection point of said at least one laser, wherein said at least one light reflecting member is configured to be arranged around a point where said frequency-shifted light exits said tissue site to said at least one optical filter, and wherein said at least one light-reflecting member has a hole for said light to enter said tissue site and/or for said frequency shifted light to exit.
However, Wang et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein at least one light-reflecting member is configured to be arranged around an injection point of at least one laser (mirror – fig. 7), wherein said at least one light reflecting member is configured to be arranged around a point where a frequency-shifted light exits a tissue site to at least one optical filter (fig. 7), and wherein said at least one light-reflecting member has a hole for said light to enter said tissue site and/or for said frequency shifted light to exit (opening – fig. 7),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least one light reflecting member, ultrasound transducer and laser of Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al with being arranged on said surface of said tissue site and around an injection point where light exits said tissue site and having a hole of Wang et al as it would provide focusing said light to a focal point of said ultrasonic transducer.
Claim(s) 10-13 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi (2007/0187632) in view of McKenna et al (2012/0197133) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Di (Preparation of Materials for Deep Tissue Imaging with Slow Light).
Regarding claims 10-13 and 15, Igarashi as modified by McKenna disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein said at least one optical filter is a slow-light filter structure comprising a host crystal, wherein said at least one slow-light filter structure comprises two different absorption lines to construct filters at two wavelengths, wherein said host crystal either uses a single ion, by co-doped with multiple ions or be comprises of multiple different crystals spliced or sandwiched together, wherein the at least one slow-light filter structure comprises a band stop filter configuration, blocking only the original frequency light.
However, Di teaches in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein at least one optical filter is a slow-light filter structure comprising a host crystal (p.9, col.1), wherein said at least one slow-light filter structure comprises two different absorption lines to construct filters at two wavelengths (fig.2.4), wherein said host crystal either uses a single ion, by co-doped with multiple ions or be comprises of multiple different crystals spliced or sandwiched together (ion doped crystals – p.7, section 2.2), wherein the at least one slow-light filter structure comprises a band stop filter configuration, blocking only the original frequency light (p. v).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtering of Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al with a slow-light filter comprising a host crystal, two different absorption lines and being a single ion or co-doped as well as a band stop filter as it would provide deep tissue imaging by slowing down light.
Regarding claim 16-18, Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein an electric and/or magnetic field creating element configured to affect lifetimes of said at least one slow-light filter structure, wherein said electric and/or magnetic field is configured to position an anti-hole of said at last one slow-light filter structure at an original laser frequency of said laser, and wherein said magnetic field creating element comprises at least one permanent magnet.
However, Di teaches in the same medical field of endeavor, an electric and/or magnetic field creating element configured to affect lifetimes of said at least one slow-light filter structure (p.31, fig.4.8), wherein said electric and/or magnetic field is configured to position an anti-hole of said at last one slow-light filter structure at an original laser frequency of said laser (p.10, last paragraph – p.11), and wherein said magnetic field creating element comprises at least one permanent magnet (small magnetic field - p.10, last paragraph; p.30, section 4.3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtering of Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al with a magnetic field creating element of a magnet and positioning an anti-hole of Di as it would affect the absorption profiles of atoms.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi (2007/0187632) in view of Di (Preparation of Materials for Deep Tissue Imaging with Slow Light) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Lampe et al (2023/0048327).
Regarding claim 14, Igarashi as modified by Di disclose blocking all light except the frequency shifted light (Di – absorb the non-frequency-shifted light – p.1, 2nd paragraph). Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al and Di fail to explicitly disclose a notch filter configuration.
However, Lampe et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, a notch filter configuration ([0212]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the filtering and blocking all light except the frequency shifted light of Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al and Di with a notch filter configuration as it would provide isolation and/or removal of various frequency components for frequency analyses.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi (2007/0187632) in view of McKenna et al (2012/0197133) and further in view of Wang et al (2006/0184042) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Donhowe et al (2021/0213147).
Regarding claim 19, Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al and Wang et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above. Wang et al further teaches a diameter of about 5.5 mm ([0067]). Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al and Wang et al fail to explicitly disclose wherein said hold has a diameter of between 3 to 4 mm.
However, Donhowe et al teach in an analogous field of endeavor, wherein a hole has a diameter of between 3 to 4 mm (resulting opening in the reflective layers is 4 mm diamond).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the at least one light-reflecting member and a diameter of about 5.5 mm of Igarashi as modified by McKenna et al and Wang et al with a diameter of between 3 to 4 mm of Donhowe et al as it would provide a sufficient opening for light.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROCHELLE DEANNA TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-2:30.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571)272-7230. 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.
/ROCHELLE D TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797