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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/20/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
However, the examiner believes the US patent application publication “20200009032” (listed as Alfano et al., but is actually Cetti et al.) was submitted as a typo, and should be “20200090329” (actually Alfano et al.).
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1-13 in the reply filed on 07/23/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 14-26 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and/or species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: L1, L2, L3, L4, SF, SL, TL in Fig. 1; ACSF, glass coverslip beads layer, glass slide, Vortex Scan Path in Fig. 5A; and water, glass coverslip, glass slide in Fig. 5B.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, a flow chart showing the steps of method claims 1-13, including claim 1 of “determining a size of a target within a target plane; generating a plurality of quantum particles; converting the plurality of quantum particles into non-zero orbital angular momentum (OAM) quantum particles defining a wavefront phase vortex having a diameter corresponding to the size of the target; and directing the vortex to the target within the target plane” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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 § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 3, 6-8, and 10-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by S. Mamani et al, “Transmission of classically entangled beams through mouse brain tissue”, Journal of Biophotonics, vol. 11, pp. 1-10, March 2018, from IDS, hereinafter referred to as Mamani.
Regarding claim 1, Mamani teaches a method, comprising:
determining a size of a target within a target plane (see pg. 5, col. 2, para. 5 – “Data was collected for a 120 μm and a 600 μm thick brain tissues…” thickness of tissue as determined size of target);
generating a plurality of quantum particles (see pg. 4, col. 1, para. 2 – “Figure 1 shows the experimental setup where a He-Ne laser of 5 mW at 633 nm was used as a light source [generating quantum particles], focusing onto a single-mode optical fiber (SMOF).”);
converting the plurality of quantum particles into non-zero orbital angular momentum (OAM) quantum particles defining a wavefront phase vortex having a diameter corresponding to the size of the target (see pg. 6, col. 1, para. 1 - “Also, the size of the OAM beam for each ℓ value was taken into account when sending it through each region of the brain sample [target]. In the 120 μm thick tissue, the LG beam penetrated the cortex, the hippocampus, and white matter (Figure 1).”; see pg. 5, col. 1, para. 1 – “To generate vector vortex beams with various OAM values, we combined a spatial light modulator (SLM) with a vortex retarder (VR). A SLM is a phase and amplitude modulator that generates vortex beams by inputting computer generated holograms onto the phase [wavefront phase vortex] of the SLM.” Spatial light modulator would adjust diameter of vortex to correspond to size of target); and
directing the vortex to the target within the target plane (see pg. 6, col. 1, para. 1 - “Also, the size of the OAM beam for each ℓ value was taken into account when sending it through each region of the brain sample [directing vortex to target]. In the 120 μm thick tissue, the LG beam penetrated the cortex, the hippocampus, and white matter (Figure 1).”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Mamani further teaches wherein converting the plurality of quantum particles to define the vortex having the corresponding diameter includes setting an L mode number of the vortex (see pg. 5, col. 2, para. 5 – “Data was collected for a 120 μm and a 600 μm thick brain tissues for linearly, circularly, radially, and azimuthally polarized beams at different positive ℓ values (ℓ = 0, 1, 3, 5 and 7) [L mode numbers], respectively.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Mamani further teaches wherein directing the vortex to the target within the target plane includes determining a location of the target within the target plane and directing the vortex to the location of the target within the target plane (see pg. 6, col. 1, para. 1 - “Also, the size of the OAM beam for each ℓ value was taken into account when sending it through each region of the brain sample. In the 120 μm thick tissue, the LG beam penetrated the cortex, the hippocampus, and white matter (Figure 1).”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Mamani further teaches wherein multiple vortices are directed to multiple targets within the target plane or multiple target planes (see pg. 6, col. 1, para. 1 – “In the 120 μm thick tissue, the LG beam penetrated the cortex, the hippocampus, and white matter [multiple targets] (Figure 1).”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Mamani further teaches wherein converting the plurality of quantum particles includes directing the plurality of quantum particles through one or more quantum particle manipulation components (see Fig. 1 – “General experimental setup. M, mirror; C, collimator; SMOF, single mode optical fiber; SLM, spatial light modulator; L, lenses; PH, pinhole;…” as manipulation components).
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Mamani further teaches imaging the target using the vortex (see pg. 5, col. 1, para. 1 – “To generate vector vortex beams with various OAM values, we combined a spatial light modulator (SLM) with a vortex retarder (VR). A SLM is a phase and amplitude modulator that generates vortex beams by inputting computer generated holograms onto the phase of the SLM.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Mamani further teaches wherein each quantum particle of the plurality of quantum particles is a photon (see pg. 5, col. 1, para. 1 – “To generate vector vortex beams with various OAM values, we combined a spatial light [photon] modulator (SLM) with a vortex retarder (VR). A SLM is a phase and amplitude modulator that generates vortex beams by inputting computer generated holograms onto the phase of the SLM.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, Mamani further teaches wherein the plurality of photons includes two photons (see pg. 2, col. 2, para. 2 – “In this experiment, these brain regions are examined to determine whether there are special maze pathways in brain tissue for photons [two (more than one) photons] to propagate as vortex LG OAM beams.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, Mamani further teaches wherein the vortex includes super-twisted light (see Abstract Figure – “Illustration of complex beam [super-twisted light] traveling through a mouse brain slide.”).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2, 4-5, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mamani in view of Poletto et al. (US 20120253261 A1, published October 4, 2012), hereinafter referred to as Poletto.
Regarding claim 2, Mamani teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Mamani teaches directing the vortex to the target, and it is inherent and known in the art to adjust the settings of a system to stimulate a target while minimizing tissue damage, but does not explicitly teach perturbating the target while minimizing photodamage.
Whereas, Poletto, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein directing the vortex to the target includes perturbating the target while minimizing photodamage (Fig. 1; see para. 0059 – “Thus, optical stimulation allows, e.g. one or more of electrodes 17 on leads 12A and 12B to simultaneously electrical sense the resulting reaction by the target tissue, which, in turn, may allow system 2 to provide for closed-loop feedback and control of the optical stimulation.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified directing the vortex to the target, as disclosed in Mamani, by also perturbating the target while minimizing photodamage, as disclosed in Poletto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide no risk of tissue capture or excessive heating, as taught in Poletto (see para. 0059).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Poletto further teaches wherein the target is a neuronal soma and wherein the corresponding diameter is greater than a nucleus of the neuronal soma and less than or equal to an overall size of the neuronal soma (see para. 0076 – “The optical stimulation delivered by stimulator 4 may be configured to activate the light-sensitive proteins in order to modulate the behavior of the target neurons.”; see para. 0078 – “In another example, one or more lenses may be used to focus or dissipate the light, as desired [adjustable] to provide more intense or scattered optical stimulation in the target tissue.” so the diameter of the light can be adjustable to a diameter is greater than a nucleus of the neuronal soma and less than or equal to an overall size of the neuronal soma).
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Poletto further teaches wherein the vortex is configured to limit or avoid spurious stimulations when the diameter of the vortex corresponds to the size of the target (see para. 0076 – “The optical stimulation delivered by stimulator 4 may be configured to activate the light-sensitive proteins in order to modulate the behavior of the target neurons.”; see para. 0078 – “In another example, one or more lenses may be used to focus or dissipate the light, as desired [adjustable] to provide more intense or scattered optical stimulation in the target tissue.” so the diameter of the light can be adjustable to limit or avoid spurious stimulations).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Poletto further teaches wherein the target is a neuron and wherein the method further comprises perturbating the target neuron with the vortex to activate opsins and modify action potential in the neuron (Fig. 1 and 3; see para. 0076 – “The optical stimulation delivered by stimulator 4 may be configured to activate the light-sensitive proteins in order to modulate the behavior of the target neurons, e.g. to modulate the action potential to activate and/or inactivate the neuron cells. In one example, as described above, a first opsin is activated by a first wavelength of light delivered by stimulator 4 via optical stimulation generator 60, light source 63 and fibers 11 so that the target neurons become permeable to cations to initiate neuronal spikes and fire the target neuron and a second opsin is activated by a second wavelength of light to deactivate or inhibit the target neurons.”).
The motivation for claims 4-5 and 9 was shown previously in claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Alfano et al. (US 20210080382 A1, published March 18, 2021) discloses brain regions are examined to determine whether there are special maze pathways in brain tissue for photons to propagate as radial and azimuthal Majorana LG vortex for J beams
Ashrafi et al. (US 20150260650 A1, published September 17, 2015) discloses the tuning parameters enable selection of one of the holographic images in order to provide the desired OAM wave twisted output signal through a selector circuit.
Albu et al. (US 20100327866 A1, published December 30, 2010) discloses sequentially illuminating the sample with a focused beam of light carrying angular orbital angular momentum (OAM) and possibly momentum (spin).
S. Jimenez-Gambin et al, “Transcranial Focusing of Ultrasonic Vortices by Acoustic Holograms”, Physical Review Applied, vol. 14, no. 054070, pp. 1-10, Sept. 2020 discloses phase-conjugated acoustic holograms can encode time-reversed fields, allowing compensation of the aberrations of the skull and, simultaneously, the generation of a focused vortex inside an ex vivo human skull (Fig. 1).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights