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 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 1-12 and 18 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 1 recites the limitation " change in the intensity " in line 10 page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since “a change in an intensity” was not previously recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “a change in the intensity” in line 15 page 3, and it is not definite whether it is a new and distinct change that is detected or refers to same change as recited in claim 1.
Claim 3 recites “the optical power transmission” in line 16 page 3. Claim 3 recites the limitation " the optical power transmission " in line 16 page 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, since “an optical power transmission” was not previously recited in claims 1 and 3.
Claim 12 recites “the wideband laser pulses” and it is not definite whether it is same or different from claimed “the laser pulse” in claims 1 and 9.
Claim 18 recites “a change in the intensity” in line 18 page 5, and it is not definite whether it is a new and distinct change that is detected or refers to same change as recited in claim 13.
Claims 2-12 are rejected due to their dependency as they inherit the rejection of claim 1 set forth above.
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, 3-4, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by “Rozental et al.,” WO 2020/039427 (hereinafter Rozental).
Regarding to claim 1, Rozental teaches an ultrasound detection system, comprising:
a wideband laser source configured to emit a wideband laser beam (a laser beam source [0016]; wideband pulse laser [0038]);
a wideband pulse laser generator (an interferometer configured to generate a pulsed laser beam [0016]; wideband pulse laser [0038]);
an array of optical resonators (114a-114d resonators Fig.1A [0038]) configured to be impinged by an acoustic wave (acoustic wave impinges on an optical resonator [0003]), the array is in optical communication with the wideband pulse laser generator, such that laser pulses generated by the wideband pulse laser generator resonate in the array of optical resonators (a wideband pulse laser with bandpass filter and amplifier create a source to cover all spectra of resonators [0038] Figure 1A); and
an array of photodetectors (photodetectors [0038]), each photodetector is in optical communication with at least one corresponding optical resonator (4 resonators connected to photodetectors [0038]) and configured to detect a change in the intensity of at least one laser pulse in response to impingement by the acoustic wave (decode ultrasound-induced shifts in the wavelengths of multiple resonators from intensity measurements, by photodetector [0035]).
Regarding to claims 3-4 and 11, Rozental teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Rozental further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 3, wherein detecting a change in the intensity comprises detecting a change in the optical power transmission (optical power transmission is indicative of shifts of the spectral response [0013]).
Of claim 4, further comprising an ultrasound transducer configured to produce acoustic waves (Acoustic wave created by an ultrasound transducer [0058]).
Of claim 11, wherein each optical resonator is selected from a group consisting of: m phase-shifted Bragg grating, Fabry-Perot cavity, and optical-ring resonator (Bragg grating, Fabry-Perot cavity, and optical-ring resonator [0021]).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozental as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Thumma et al.,” US 2011/0125004 (hereinafter Thumma).
Regarding to claim 2, Rozental teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Rozental teaches that when acoustic wave impinges on an optical resonator, results in demodulation of the wavelength and monitoring shifts in the wavelength, one can measure the ultrasound induced pressure within the resonator ([0003]) and decode ultrasound-induced shifts in the wavelengths of multiple resonators from intensity measurements, by photodetector ([0035]). Thus, shifts in the wavelength is induced pressure and intensity measurements is related to the shifts in the wavelength, which indicates relationship between intensity measurement and applied pressure as claimed.
The examiner further submits Thumma which explicitly discloses that pressure waves applied results in displacement of tissue due to pressure wave changes the intensity ([0041], [0053]-[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify resonator as taught by Rozental to incorporate teaching of Thumma, since change in the intensity proportional to a pressure applied was well known in the art as taught by Thumma. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Rozental with no change in their respective functions, configuring the relationship of pressure waves and change in intensity, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide translate intensity variation into the displacement and obtain an image from the displacement ([0054]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozental as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Zhu et al.,” US 2023/0380813 (hereinafter Zhu) and “Rozental et al.,” US 2014/0114187 (hereinafter Rozental 187).
Regarding to claims 5-8, Rozental teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Rozental further teaches the wideband laser beam is emitted at 1460 nm to 1600 nm, since Rozental discloses the pulse laser has a central wavelength of 1560 nm ([0051]).
Rozental does not explicitly the specific types of the optical resonators and other range of wavelengths.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging system, Zhu teaches that optical resonators may include a transparent medium such as glass, transparent polymer, silicone-nitride or any other material that is suitably optically transparent at an operation wavelength of the optical resonator ([0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify resonator as taught by Rozental to incorporate teaching of Zhu, since polymer, glass, silicone-nitride material in resonator was well known in the art as taught by Zhu. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Rozental with no change in their respective functions, configuring the resonator include a transparent medium such as glass, silicone-nitride, and polymer, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide resonator suitable at an operation wavelength for propagation of the light at the wavelength ([0042]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Moreover, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging system, Rozental 187 teaches a pulsed laser source emitting a predetermined excitation light in a wavelength range of 650 nm to 900nm, or 1100 nm to 1300 nm ([0080]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify laser as taught by Rozental to incorporate teaching of Rozental 187, since laser emitting excitation light at various ranges of wavelengths including 650 nm to 1300 nm was well known in the art as taught by Rozental 187. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Rozental with no change in their respective functions, configuring its laser source to emit light at wavelengths ranging from 650 nm to 1300 nm and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide vascular imaging ([0080]-[0081]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozental as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Rozental et al.,” US 2020/0196874 (hereinafter Rozental 874).
Regarding to claims 9-10, Rozental teaches all limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Rozental does not further teach wherein the photodetectors are selected from photodiodes, photo-multipliers, Quantum dot photoconductors, and phototransistor, and wherein the array of optical resonators is dimensioned to be included in an insertable unit configured to be inserted in a catheter.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound detection system, Rozental 874 teaches that a fiber-based resonator can be used in a miniaturized imaging catheter (Fig. 1 shows optical resonators 20 in a probe [0003]; [0040]; probe insertable into cavity [0068]) and photodiodes ([0035] and [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify resonator as taught by Rozental to incorporate teaching of Rozental 874, since optical detector such as photodiodes in miniaturized optical optoacoustic imaging catheter was well known in the art as taught by Rozental 874. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Rozental with no change in their respective functions, configuring miniaturized optical detector including photodiodes and resonator and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide ultrasound image of an organ of a patient using photodiodes and resonators in miniaturized imaging catheter ([0003], [0038], and [0045]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 12, Rozental and Rozental 874 together teach all limitations of claim 9 as discussed above.
Rozental 874 further teaches a first optical fiber for delivering the wideband laser pulses to the array of optical resonators and a second optical fiber configured to deliver the resonated laser pulses from the array of optical resonators to the array of photodetectors (Coupler outputs the pulses to optical fibers into waveguides [0043]; a pulsed optical source supplies through an optical fiber to detector array [0069]).
Claims 13-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Rozental et al.,” WO 2020/039427 (hereinafter Rozental) and “Westerveld et al.,” US 2020/0319019 (hereinafter Westerveld).
Regarding to claim 13, Rozental teaches a method of imaging a blood vessel (imaging applications [0059]), comprising;
controlling a wideband pulse laser source to emit a wideband laser beam (an interferometer configured to generate a pulsed laser beam [0016]; wideband pulse laser [0038]);
receiving from an array of photodetectors (4 resonators connected to photodetectors [0038]) a signal related to an intensity of at least one laser pulse resonating in an array of optical resonators being in optical connection to the wideband pulse laser source (decode ultrasound-induced shifts in the wavelengths of multiple resonators from intensity measurements, by photodetector [0035]);
detecting a change in the intensity of at least one laser pulse in response to impingement by an acoustic wave ([0017]; decode ultrasound-induced shifts in the wavelengths of multiple resonators from intensity measurements [0035])
at least one of: analyzing the detected change ([0035])
Rozental does not further teach following limitations:
detecting a change in the intensity of at least one laser pulse in response to impingement by an acoustic wave reflected from the blood vessel;
at least one of: analyzing the detected change and generating an ultrasound image of the blood vessel.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in imaging resonator based detectors of ultrasound imaging system, Westerveld teaches ultrasound imaging ([0066]) where the region of interest includes blood ([0166]), and optical resonators due to affected physical properties, directly cause a change in the transmitted intensity ([0091]), due to acoustical pressure waves deforming the membranes of the sensor elements detected by detector as changes in optical intensity, modulation of the transmitted optical intensity is used for detecting the acoustical pressure waves ([0151]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify resonator as taught by Rozental to incorporate teaching of Westerveld, since ultrasound imaging of the blood vessel was well known in the art as taught by Westerveld. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Rozental with no change in their respective functions, configuring its imaging to be directed to the blood vessel, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide ultrasound image of object of interest with high signal to noise ratio ([0035]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claims 14 and 18, Rozental and Westerveld together teach all limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Rozental further teaches following limitations:
of claim 14, controlling an ultrasound transducer to generate an acoustic waves (Acoustic wave created by an ultrasound transducer [0058]), and Westerveld further teaches directing acoustic waves to the blood vessel ([0116] and [0166]).
claim 18, wherein detecting a change in the intensity comprises detecting a change in the optical power transmission (optical power transmission is indicative of shifts of the spectral response [0013]).
Regarding to claims 15-16, Rozental and Westerveld together teach all limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Westerveld further teaches following limitations:
Of claim 15, wherein the blood vessel is a deep-tissue blood vessel (deep in brain tissue [0002])
Of claim 16, wherein the deep-tissue blood vessel is imaged during a medical procedure (medical applications, catheter based applications such as intravascular, laparoscopic applications [0004]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozental and Westerveld as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of “Thumma et al.,” US 2011/0125004 (hereinafter Thumma).
Regarding to claim 17, Rozental and Westerveld together teach all limitations of claim 13 as discussed above.
Rozental teaches that when acoustic wave impinges on an optical resonator, results in demodulation of the wavelength and monitoring shifts in the wavelength, one can measure the ultrasound induced pressure within the resonator ([0003]) and decode ultrasound-induced shifts in the wavelengths of multiple resonators from intensity measurements, by photodetector ([0035]). Thus, shifts in the wavelength is induced pressure and intensity measurements is related to the shifts in the wavelength, which indicates relationship between intensity measurement and applied pressure as claimed.
The examiner further submits Thumma which explicitly discloses that pressure waves applied results in displacement of tissue due to pressure wave changes the intensity ([0041], [0053]-[0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify resonator as taught by Rozental to incorporate teaching of Thumma, since change in the intensity proportional to a pressure applied was well known in the art as taught by Thumma. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Rozental with no change in their respective functions, configuring the relationship of pressure waves and change in intensity, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide translate intensity variation into the displacement and obtain an image from the displacement ([0054]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 pm.
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 at 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 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798