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 .
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the current abstract is not in a proper format, i.e. the abstract is required to be on a separate sheet, the WIPO format does not suffice. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 29-37, 39-40 & 42 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2016/0008623) in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2015/0238776).
Claim 29.
Jones et al. teaches a photodynamic treatment system comprising:
a mobile base 40
E.G. [0073]-[0077]
a vertical column/support 42
E.G. [0073]-[0077]
a controller/user interface 24
E.G. [0077].
an extension member/support movable relative to the vertical support to position the lamp head 30, 42
E.G. [0073]-[0077].
an arm mounted to the support, 30
E.G. [0073]-[0077]
an illuminator connected to the arm
E.G., via the lamp head 20, [0073]-[0077]
the arm and illuminator movable relative to the vertical support to adjust illuminator position.
E.G. [0075]-[0077]
the illuminator comprising a plurality of panels/lamp module 21 configured to provide substantially uniform illumination of a treatment surface
E.G. [0014]-[0018], [0071]-[0096], Figs. 2A-9A
Jones does not explicitly teach:
a controller configured to control light intensity responsive to an input from at least one to sensor, wherein the sensor senses a position of at least one panel.
Sakamoto et al. teaches:
a sensing device communicating with a controller that the controller varies treatment parameters based upon sensed characteristics, E.G. [0020]4
activation and/or feedback characteristics associated with sensing device 360, E.G. [0096].
Sensors providing information used by the controller to control treatment parameters, [0104].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the photodynamic treatment system of Jones et al. incorporate the sensor-based feedback control system of Sakamoto et al. so that treatment parameters, including illumination intensity, could be automatically adjusted based on sensed operating conditions, thereby improving treatment consistency, reducing operator error, and maintaining desired treatment dosage despite changes in illuminator positioning and treatment conditions. KSR?
Claim 30
Jones et al. teaches the plurality of lamp modules arranged in a generally U-shaped configuration surrounding a treatment region, E.G. [0014]-[0017], [0074]-[0075], (Figs 1-2C).
Claim 31
Jones et al. teaches:
an arm having stationary and movable portions
E.G. via the disclosed arm 60, Fig 1.
movement between stored and treatment positions
E.G. [0077]
the illuminator arranged around the support column when stored
E.G. Fig 1.
Claim 32.
Jones et al. teaches the support structure configured to move vertically relative to the support column to adjust lamp height
E.G. [0077].
Claim 33.
Jones et al. teaches:
a joint dividing the arm into movable portions;
rotation about the joint for positioning the illuminator
E.G. [0075], Fig 1.
Claim 34.
Jones et al. teaches:
a mounting mechanism/yoke 23;
a rotation of the lamp head about an axis generally perpendicular to the support column;
rotation up to approximately 180 degrees
E.G. [0075], Figs. 1-2C
Claim 35.
Jones et al. teaches:
a mounting plate/yoke defining a rotational axis extending through the illuminator;
rotation about the axis to position the illuminator
E.G. [0075]; Figs. 1-2C
Claim 36.
Jones et al. teaches multiple rotational axes including:
arm joint axis;
yoke axis;
lamp-headed rotational axis;
wherein the axes are substantially perpendicular and permit multi-axis rotation
E.G. [0075]; Figs. 1-2C
Claim 37.
Jones et al. teaches substantially the same features as claim 36 including a bracket/yoke, multiple rotational axes, and rotational about the respective axes, E.G. [0075], (Figs 1-2C).
Claim 39.
Jones et al. teaches patient cooling arrangements including cooling fans and air flow associated with the treatment system, E.G [0020], [0028]-[0029], [0077].
Claim 40.
Jones et al. teaches multiple cooling structures associated with the lamp modules for directing airflow along the lamp surfaces and treatment region, E.G. [0028]-[0029].
Claim 42.
Jones et al. teaches:
a user interface/control panel
power controls;
status indicators;
treatment timing controls for PDT procedures
E.G. 24, [0075]-[0077].
Claim(s) 38 & 41 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2016/0008623) in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2015/0238776), as applied to claims 29-37, 39-40 and 42, further in view of Ota et al. (CN 102314093).
Claim 38 depends from claim 29. Jones et al. and Sakamoto et al. teach the limitations of claim 29 as set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding the additional limitations of claim 38, Jones et al. teaches a plurality of movable lamp modules/panels 21 configured to illuminate a treatment surface, E.G. [0014]-[0018], [0074]-[0096]; Figs. 1-2C.
Sakamoto et al. teaches sensor-based feedback control of treatment parameters using one or more sensors communicating with a controller, E.G [0020], [0096], [0104].
Ota et al. teaches a distance sensor associated with an illuminator for determining a distance between the illuminator and a treatment surface and utilizing the measured distance is controlling illumination parameters, E.G [0079].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention as made to provide the movable illumination panels of Jones et al. with distance sensing functionality as taught by Ota et al. and to incorporate the sensor-feedback control of Sakamoto et al. in order to determine spacing between the illumination source and the treatment surface and thereby improve treatment accuracy, dosing consistency and illumination uniformity while reducing operator error. KSR.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, providing distance sensors associated with respective movable illumination panels would have represented no more than the predictable use of known sensing technology to monitor the position of multiple movable illumination elements within the Jones et al. system.
Claim 41 depends from claim 29, Jones et al. and Sakamoto et al. teach the limitations of claim 29 as set forth above and incorporated herein.
Regarding the additional limitation that the controller is configured to determine a dosing parameter based on the position of at least one panel, Sakamoto et al. teaches a controller configured to vary treatment parameters based on information received from one or more sensors, E.G. [0020], [0096], [0104].
Ota et al. teaches determining illumination parameters based upon a measured distance between an illuminator and a target surface, E.G. [0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to determine a treatment dosing parameter based upon the sensed position or distance of the illumination panels relative to the treatment surface because delivered irradiance and dosage are directly affected by source-to-target spacing. Such modification would merely apply a known control technique to obtain predictable results, namely improved treatment consistency and ore accurate delivery of a prescribed photodynamic dose. KSR.
Claim(s) 43-48 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 2016/0008623) in view of Sakamoto et al. (US 2015/0238776) and further in view of Ota et al. (CN 102314093).
Claim 43 recites a method of photodynamically diagnosing or treating a patient.
Jones et al. teaches identifying a treatment surface and positioning a plurality of movable lamp modules relative to the treatment surface for photodynamic treatment, E.G. [0088]-[0096], Figs. 6A-9A. Jones et al. further teaches initiating a treatment cycle and providing treatment illumination to the patient, E.G. [0088]-[0096].
Sakamoto et al. teaches one or more sensors communicating with a controller, wherein treatment parameters are adjusted responsive to sensed information, [0020], [0096], [0104].
Ota et al. teaches detecting a position and/or distance of an illuminator relative to a target surface using a distance sensor associated with the illuminator and using the detected distance in controlling illumination parameters, [0079].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Jones treatment method to detect illuminator position using sensors as taught by Ota et al. and to utilize the controller-based feedback techniques of Sakamoto et al. in order to improve treatment accuracy, dosage control and repeatability of treatment procedures. KSR.
The limitation of causing air cooler than the treatment surface to be directed to the patient is taught by Jones et al., which teaches cooling arrangements and patient cooling during photodynamic treatment, E.G. [0020], [0028]-[0029], [0077].
Claim 44 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 43. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, detecting a position of the illuminator encompasses detecting an arrangement of the movable illumination panels that form the illuminator. Jones et al. teaches adjustable lamp modules/panels arranged in multiple treatment configurations, [0014]-[0018], [0074]-[0075]; Figs. 2A-2C.
Claim 45.
Claim 45 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 43. Jones et al. further teaches heating and cooling treatment surfaces during photodynamic treatment, E.G. [0104].
Claim 46.
Claim 46 recites an illuminator comprising a plurality of panels and a plurality of distance sensors associated with corresponding panels.
Jones et al. teaches an illuminator comprising a plurality of movable lamp modules/panels 21, E.G. [0014]-[0018], [0074]-[0075]; Figs. 1-2C.
Ota et al. teaches a distance sensor associated with an illuminator for sensing a distance between the illuminator and a target surface and controlling illumination parameters based upon the sensed distance, E.G. [0079].
Sakamoto et al. teaches controller-based utilization of sensor information for treatment control, E.G. [0020], [0096], [0104]
It would have been obvious to provide respective distance sensors for the respective movable illumination panels of Jones et al. because each panel may occupy a different position relative to the treatment surface and individual distance measurements would improve illumination control and treatment uniformity. Such use of multiple sensors merely represents duplication of known elements performing the same known function to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2144.04(VI).
Further, it would have been obvious to arrange the panels based on the sensed distances in order to achieve a desired treatment geometry illumination profile, consistent with the positioning objectives already taught by Jones et al.
Claim 47.
Claim 47 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 46. Jones et al. teaches a U-shaped panel arrangement in which outer panels at least partially face another, E.G. [0014]-[0018]; Figs. 2A-2C.
Claim 48.
Claim 48 is rejected for substantially the same reasons as claim 46. Jones et al. teaches cooling fans and associated cooling structures for photodynamic treatment systems, E.G. [0028]-[0029], [0077].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE F JOHNSON whose telephone number is (571)270-5040. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00am-5:00pm 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, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/NICOLE F JOHNSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights