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 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 10, “modulate the first modulation light signal” should read “modulate the first modulated light signal”. 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 2-7, 11-17, and 19 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite because it is further limiting on an aspect of claim 1 that was not required. The claim does not require the light signal to be modulated based on both the ultrasonic signal and the echo signal. In the case that only one of the ultrasonic and the echo signal is used to modulate the light signal, the limitation “modulate the light using the ultrasonic signal …[and] modulate the first modulated light based on the echo signal” is indefinite.
Claims 3-7 depend from claim 2, and incorporate it in its entirety, and are therefore indefinite for the reasons provided above.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite because it is further limiting on an aspect of claim 1 that was not required. The claim does not require the light signal to be modulated based on both the ultrasonic signal and the echo signal, it requires at least one or the other. In the case that only one of the ultrasonic and the echo signal is used to modulate the light signal, the limitation “modulate the light using the ultrasonic signal …[and] modulate the first modulated light based on the echo signals” is indefinite.
Claims 12-17 depend from claim 11, and incorporate it in its entirety, and are therefore indefinite for the reasons provided above.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite because it is further limiting on an aspect of claim 18 that was not required. The claim does not require the light signal to be modulated based on both the ultrasonic signal and the echo signal. In the case that only one of the ultrasonic and the echo signal is used to modulate the light signal, the limitation “modulate the light using the ultrasonic signal …[and] modulate the first modulated light based on the echo signal” is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaaskelainen (WO 2017/105424) in view of Ge (2023/0393099).
With respect to claim 1, Jaaskelainen teaches a transmitter configured to emit the ultrasonic signal (pg 9, lines 19-22; pg 10, lines 8-15); a receiver configured to receive an echo signal that occurs when the ultrasonic signal is reflected from an object (pg 9, lines 16-17; pg 10, lines 16-18); and a photoacoustic ultrasonic sensor configured to measure a light signal modulated based on at least one of the ultrasonic signal or the echo signal (pg 6, lines 11-17; pg 9, lines 14-15; pg 10, lines 18-22). However, it does not teach a signal generator configured to generate an ultrasonic signal.
Ge teaches a signal generator configured to generate an ultrasonic signal ([0058], lines 8-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Jaaskelainen with the signal generator of Ge since such a modification would have provided a stable and repeatable signal.
With respect to claim 18, Jaaskelainen teaches emitting, by a transmitter, the ultrasonic signal (pg 9, lines 19-22; pg 10, lines 8-15); receiving, at a receiver, an echo signal that occurs when the ultrasonic signal is reflected from an object (pg 9, lines 16-17; pg 10, lines 16-18); and measuring, at a photoacoustic ultrasonic sensor, a light signal modulated based on at least one of the ultrasonic signal or the echo signal (pg 6, lines 11-17; pg 9, lines 14-15; pg 10, lines 18-22). However, it does not teach generating an ultrasonic signal using a signal generator.
Ge teaches generating an ultrasonic signal using a signal generator ([0058], lines 8-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the method of Jaaskelainen with the signal generator of Ge since such a modification would have provided a stable and repeatable signal.
With respect to claim 8, Jaaskelainen teaches a filter configured to filter the light signal measured by the photoacoustic ultrasonic sensor to output a beat frequency signal (pg 11, lines 16-18).
Claim(s) 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaaskelainen in view of Ge, and further in view of Brenne (20230388012).
With respect to claim 9, Jaaskelainen as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert the light signal measured by the photoacoustic ultrasonic sensor into a digital signal.
Brenne teaches an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) configured to convert the light signal measured by the photoacoustic ultrasonic sensor into a digital signal ([0053], lines 6-7; [0056], lines 23-29). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Jaaskelainen with the ADC of Brenne since such a modification would have allowed the data to be processed in a digital processor.
With respect to claim 10, Jaaskelainen as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach a processor configured to process the light signal measured by the photoacoustic ultrasonic sensor.
Brenne teaches a processor configured to process the light signal measured by the photoacoustic ultrasonic sensor ([0053], line 7; [0056], lines 29-33). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the apparatus of Jaaskelainen with the processor of Brenne since such a modification would have improved the speed and accuracy of processing the data.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 20 is allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights