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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/03/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive and moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The prior rejection headings were corrected for their typographical errors.
Regarding the arguments made against the 103 rejection of Santori and Mestha, the ‘coordinating’ of both sequential and simultaneous capture is not detailed in the claims. The language merely recites that both types of capture are occurring.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph 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, 3, and 5-11 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, it is unclear as to how one can simultaneously capture and sequentially capture the recited multiple planes at the same time. If the multiple planes are captures simultaneously, it implies that they would all be captured at once, which would not allow for sequential capture.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Demos (US 2010/0020319, of record).
Regarding claim 12, Demos discloses a hyper-excitation hyperspectral imaging (HE-HIS) spectral imaging system ([0016]: “hyperspectral imaging”) for use with a sample, the system comprising: a tunable filter or tunable light source providing multiple excitation illumination wavelengths of light across the entire UV-VIS-IR range to a sample ([0009]: “Tunable laser sources”; [0027]: “spanning ultraviolet, visible, and near infrared spectral regions”); a hyperspectral camera receiving light from the sample and capturing images at multiple wavelengths of light ([0016]: “hyperspectral imaging”, “different wavelengths”); and a processing device configured to analyze the reflectance, excitation, and emission fluorescence spectra from each pixel of the image ([0016], [0027]: “processing”).
Regarding claim 13, Demos discloses a broadband light source providing light to the sample ([0016], [0027]: “broad”); an imaging device capturing light from the sample in response to the broadband light to provide reflectance spectra; said processing device combining the reflectance spectra and the fluorescence spectra ([0016], [0027]: “processing”).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santori (US 2017/0343477, of record) in view of Mestha (US 2012/0200682, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Santori discloses a hyperexcitation hyperspectral imaging system for analyzing a sample, comprising: a controllable light source configured to sequentially illuminate the sample with different excitation wavelengths of light; and an imaging device receiving light from the sample, said imaging device configured to capture multiple spectral planes at the different excitation wavelengths of light ([0052]…[0063]: “4-D hyperspectral-imaging dataset”, Figs. 1 and 2); and sequentially capturing multiple spectral planes at the different wavelengths of light ([0052]…[0063]: “4-D hyperspectral-imaging dataset”, Figs. 1 and 2). Santori does not explicitly disclose simultaneously capturing multiple spectral planes. However, Mestha teaches simultaneous capture of spectral planes using a hyperspectral camera ([0015]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the simultaneous capture of Mestha to the hyperspectral imaging of Santori, as to provide robust capture of hyperspectral data.
Regarding claim 3, Santori discloses a first optical component configured to direct light from the light source to the sample; and a second optical component configured to receive light from the sample and direct the light to said imaging device (Fig. 3 shows two separate optical trains for irradiation and detection).
Regarding claim 5, Santori discloses that the first optical component is different than the second optical component (Fig. 3 shows two separate optical trains for irr adiation and detection).
Regarding claim 6, Santori does not explicitly disclose that the imaging device comprises a snapshot hyperspectral camera and acquires multiple spectral planes simultaneously from the light directed by said second optical component. However, Mestha teaches simultaneous capture of spectral planes using a hyperspectral camera ([0015]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the simultaneous capture of Mestha to the hyperspectral imaging of Santori, as to provide robust capture of hyperspectral data.
Regarding claim 7, Santori discloses that the imaging device comprises a hyperspectral camera that acquires multiple spectral planes sequentially ([0052]…[0063]: “4-D hyperspectral-imaging dataset”).
Regarding claim 9, Santori discloses that the imaging device creates a four-dimensional data array that includes excitation and emission data for each pixel ([0052]…[0063]: “4-D hyperspectral-imaging dataset”, Figs. 1 and 2).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santori (US 2017/0343477, of record) in view of Mestha (US 2012/0200682, of record), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Demos (US 2010/0020319, of record).
Regarding claim 8, neither Santori nor Mestha explicitly disclose that the excitation wavelengths include ultraviolet, visible, and infrared wavelengths. However, Demos teaches a broad-spectrum light source that includes ultraviolet, visible, and near infrared for hyperspectral data acquisition ([0027]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the broad spectrum source of Demos to the source of Santori, as to provide a robust and broadband light source.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Santori (US 2017/0343477, of record) in view of Mestha (US 2012/0200682, of record), as applied to claims 9 and 1 above, in view of Darty (US 2015/0051498, of record).
Regarding claim 10, neither Santori nor Mestha explicitly disclose receiving a data array from the imaging device and to provide spectrally unmixed image output. However, Darty teaches certain images that correspond to specific wavelengths or bands of wavelength ([0062]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the band images of Darty to the system of Santori, as to provide spectrally resolved images.
Regarding claim 11, neither Santori nor Mestha explicitly disclose a first polarizer configured to receive light from said light source and pass light oscillating in a specific desired plane to the sample; and a second polarizer configured to receive light from the sample, block light oscillating in planes other than a specific desired plane, and pass light oscillating at the specific desired plane to said imaging device. However, Darty teaches the use of polarizers in front of both a light source and a light detector in a hyperspectral imaging system ([0150]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the polarizers of Darty to the system of Santori, as to provide the ability to polarize light.
Claim(s) 14 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demos (US 2010/0020319, of record).
Regarding claim 14, while Demos does not explicitly disclose using a data processing algorithm to identify targets previously indistinguishable by hyperspectral imaging alone and find the optimal illumination and acquisition wavelengths, Demos teaches the upgrade and extension of the capabilities of hyperspectral systems including in vivo imaging ([0007], [0017]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the advancement of Demos, as to provide an improved hyperspectral imaging system.
Regarding claim 17, Demos discloses an endoscopic imaging device ([0029]), but does not explicitly disclose a percutaneous imaging device configured as a surgical tool. However, it is well-known in the art that percutaneous tools may be carried and delivered using endoscopic devices. Percutaneous devices are also well-known surgical tools. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply percutaneous tools to the endoscope of Demos, as to provide robust surgical tools.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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