DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In S3. There is a semi colon at the end of the clause. The other steps end with a period.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because: In S3. There is a semi colon at the end of the clause. The other steps end with a period.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because some text in Figure 1 appear to be cut off. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the steps of the claimed invention are not described any further than the words in the claim. There are no details on how to perform the steps of the claim, besides a reference to the publication, “Super-Resolution Ultrasound Through Sparsity-Based Deconvolution and Multi-Feature Tracking.
There is no description of the claimed:
a) “motion correction techniques”
b) “construction of flow velocity maps, directional maps”
c) “quantify of microvascular morphology and functional change parameters, including distortion, fractal dimension, blood flow velocity, vessel density, and vessel diameter”
d) “three-dimensional reconstruction of microvascular pathological staining results from the model”
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.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1:
a) The limitations, “lower” frame rates and “high” concentrations are indefinite because it is unclear as to what’s considered low and high.
b) The limitation, “microvascular imaging”, lacks proper antecedent basis.
c) The limitation, “etc.” is indefinite because it is unclear as to what “etc.” encompasses.
d) The limitations, “the model” and “the gold standard”, lack proper antecedent basis.
e) It is unclear as to what “the gold standard” actually is.
f) The limitation, “microvascular pathological staining results” lacks proper antecedent basis.
g) The limitation, “the influence of displacement” lacks proper antecedent basis in the claim.
h) It is unclear as to how “super-resolution imaging technology” is being carried out in the steps of the claim.
Regarding claim 2:
a) The limitation, “the tissue”, lacks proper antecedent basis.
b) It is unclear as to whether “OCT” is referring to Optical Coherence Tomography.
c) It is unclear as to what is meant by the symbol, ~Σ.
d) It is unclear as to how many rats there are.
e) The claim recites, “after pancreas isolation”, but it is unclear as to whether pancreas isolation is positively set forth as a step in the method.
f) It is unclear as to whether “FITC” is referring to Fluorescein isothiocyanate and whether there is proper support for this.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
1) “Super-Resolution Ultrasound Through Sparsity-Based Deconvolution and Multi-Feature Tracking” by J. Yan et al. IEEE Trans Med Imag. 41(8) 1938-1947. Aug 2022.
2) “Ultrafast ultrasound localization microscopy for deep super-resolution vascular imaging” by C. Errico et al. Nature. Vol. 527, 499-502. Nov. 2015.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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 on (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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Prosecution Insights