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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/25 & 02/19/25 has been acknowledged and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
excitation module in claims 1-2, 6, 15, and 20 (302 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0053]: e.g., an excitation module 302 (e.g. an excitation fibre)).
objective module in claims 1, 5, 9-10, 12 and 17 (306 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0053]: e.g., an objective module 306 (e.g. objective lens)).
emission module in claims 1, 15, and 20 (310 @ figure 3 and paragraph [0053]: e.g., an emission module 310 (e.g. an emission fibre)).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, 7-8, 10, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (A Portable Fiber Based Dual-Wavelength Confocal Raman Spectroscopy System, Vol. 11954, 1195403-1 to 1195403-4, submitted by IDS hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Yoo (US Patent No. 7,362,426).
Regarding claim 1; Zhang discloses a hand-held probe for a Raman spectroscopy system (figure 1 and abstract: e.g., a fiber-based dual-wavelength confocal Raman spectroscopy with handheld probe), comprising:
an excitation module (section 2.1 and figure 1: e.g., 1 671 nm and 785 nm lasers were coupled into a fast fiber switch and single-mode fiber SMF), configured to emit a light beam along a light path (figure 1: e.g., SMF, CM, DPLCF, DM), the light path being non-parallel to an observation axis (figure 1: e.g., DM, NF, CM, MMF);
a beam splitter (dichroic mirror DM @ figure 1), arranged in the light path of the light beam emitted by the excitation module (section 2.1 and figure 1: e.g., 1 671 nm and 785 nm lasers were coupled into a fast fiber switch and single-mode fiber SMF) and oriented to reflect the light beam along the observation axis (figure 1: e.g., DM, NF, CM, MMF);
an objective module (objective lens @ figure 1), disposed along the observation axis (figure 1: e.g., DM, NF, CM, MMF) and configured to receive the reflected light beam and transmit the reflected light beam to an object (figure 1 and abstract: skin diagnosis of patient) to be observed by the objective module (objective lens @ figure 1) so as to generate a scattered light beam by the object (figure 1 and abstract: skin diagnosis of patient), and the objective module (objective lens @ figure 1) further configured to receive the scattered light beam from the object (figure 1 and abstract: skin diagnosis of patient) and transmit the scattered light beam to the beam splitter (dichroic mirror DM @ figure 1) so as to generated a refracted light beam by the beam splitter (dichroic mirror DM @ figure 1); and
an emission module (figure 1 and section 2.1: e.g., multimode fiber MMF), disposed at the focus and configured to receive the focused light beam (figure 1), wherein the emission module (figure 1 and section 2.1: e.g., multimode fiber MMF) is disposed at a same side as the excitation module (section 2.1 and figure 1: e.g., 1 671 nm and 785 nm lasers were coupled into a fast fiber switch and single-mode fiber SMF) with respect to the observation axis (figure 1: e.g., DM, NF, CM, MMF).
Zhang discloses all of features of claimed invention except for a focusing mirror disposed in the observation axis and configured to focus the refracted light beam from the beam splitter to a focus so as to generate a focused light beam. However, Yoo teaches that it is known in the art to provide a focusing mirror (121, 123 @ figure 1 and col.7 lines 36-37: e.g., a single focusing mirror such as mirror 123) disposed in the observation axis and configured to focus the refracted light beam from the beam splitter (108 @ figure 1) to a focus so as to generate a focused light beam (col.4 lines 37-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with a focusing mirror, disposed in the observation axis and configured to focus the refracted light beam from the beam splitter to a focus so as to generate a focused light beam as taught by Yoo for the purpose of improved detection of the PL or Raman signal.
Regarding claim 2; Zhang discloses further comprising: a collimating lens (collimator CM @ figure 1), wherein the collimating lens (collimator CM @ figure 1) is disposed between the excitation module (single mode fiber SMF @ figure 1) and the beam splitter (dichroic mirror DM @ figure 1) and configured to collimate the light beam emitted by the excitation module (single mode fiber SMF @ figure 1).
Regarding claim 5; Zhang discloses the objective module comprises an objective lens assembly (objective lens @ figure 1), configured to focus the reflected light beam by the beam splitter (DM @ figure 1) onto the object (skin diseases of patient @ figure 1) and collimate the scattered light beam received from the object (skin diseases of patient @ figure 1).
Regarding claim 7; Zhang discloses the first laser beam has a wavelength of 671 nm and the second laser beam has a wavelength of 785 nm (section 2.1 and figure 1: e.g., 671 nm and 785 nm lasers).
Regarding claim 8; Zhang discloses the light beam emitted by the excitation module (SMF @ figure 1) is a combination of a first laser beam and a second laser beam (section 2.1 and figure 1: e.g., 671 nm and 785 nm lasers) via a fibre switch (figure 1), the fibre switch being configured to switch between the first laser beam and the second laser beam (section 2.1 and figure 1: e.g., 671 nm and 785 nm lasers).
Regarding claim 10; Zhang discloses further comprising: a housing having a cylindrical main body (figure 1) and a protruding (figure 1) end extending from the cylindrical main body (figure 1), wherein the beam splitter (DM @ figure 1) and the objective module (objective @ figure 1) are disposed in the cylindrical main body of the housing (figure 1).
Zhang discloses all of features of claimed invention except for a focusing mirror disposed in the cylindrical body of the housing. However, Yoo teaches that it is known in the art to provide a focusing mirror (121, 123 @ figure 1 and col.7 lines 36-37: e.g., a single focusing mirror such as mirror 123) disposed in the cylindrical body of the housing (120 @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Yoo for the purpose of improved detection of the PL or Raman signal.
Regarding claim 15; Zhang discloses the excitation module (SMF @ figure 1) comprises a single-mode fibre configured to emit the light beam and disposed along an excitation axis (figure 1), and wherein the emission module (multimode fiber MMF @ figure 1) comprises a multi-mode fibre configured to receive the focused light beam from the collimation lens (CM @ figure 1) and disposed along a receiving axis (figure 1).
Zhang discloses all of features of claimed invention except for a focusing mirror along a receiving axis. However, Yoo teaches that it is known in the art to provide a focusing mirror (121, 123 @ figure 1 and col.7 lines 36-37: e.g., a single focusing mirror such as mirror 123) disposed in a receiving axis (figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Yoo for the purpose of improved detection of the PL or Raman signal.
Regarding claim 16; Zhang discloses the excitation axis (SFM, CM, DPLCF @ figure 1) is parallel to the receiving axis (MMF, spectrometer @ figure 1).
Regarding claim 17; Zhang discloses the excitation axis (SFM, CM, DPLCF @ figure 1) and the receiving axis (MMF, spectrometer @ figure 1) are perpendicular to the observation axis (objective, DM, NF, CM @ figure 1).
Claims 3-4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view Yoo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vojnovic (US 2022/0252515).
Regarding claim 3; Zhang in view of Yoo combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a short-pass filter having a cut-off wavelength, wherein the short-pass filter is disposed between the collimating lens and the beam splitter in a manner that the light beam emitted by the excitation module passes through the short-pass filter prior to being reflected by the beam splitter. However, Vojnovic teaches that it is known in the art to provide a short-pass filter (67 @ figures 6A-6B) having a cut-off wavelength, wherein the short-pass filter (67 @ figures 6A-6B) is disposed between the collimating lens (68a @ figures 6A-6B) and the beam splitter (64 @ figure 6A) in a manner that the light beam emitted by the excitation module (68 @ figure 6A) passes through the short-pass filter (67 @ figure 6A) prior to being reflected by the beam splitter (64 @ figure 6A). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Vojnovic for the purpose of detecting accuracy fluorescence from bacteria.
Regarding claim 4; Zhang discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a filter having a cut-on wavelength, wherein the filter is disposed between the beam splitter and the focusing mirror in a manner that the refracted light beam from the beam splitter passes through the filter prior to being focused by the focusing mirror. However, Yoo teaches that it is known in the art to provide a filter (114 @ figure 1) having a cut-on wavelength, wherein the filter (114 @ figure 1) is disposed between the beam splitter (108 @ figure 1) and the focusing mirror (121, 123 @ figure 1) in a manner that the refracted light beam from the beam splitter (108 @ figure 1) passes through the filter (114 @ figure 1) prior to being focused by the focusing mirror (121, 123 @ figure 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Yoo for the purpose of improved detection of the PL or Raman signal.
Zhang in view of Yoo combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for a long-pass filter having a cut-on wavelength. However, Vojnovic teaches that it is known in the art to provide a long-pass filter (65 @ figures 6A-6B and paragraph [0071]) having a cut-on wavelength. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Vojnovic for the purpose of detecting accuracy fluorescence from bacteria.
Regarding claim 9; Zhang discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for one part of a Rayleigh scatter portion of the scattered light beam received by the objective module from the object is reflected by the beam splitter and the remaining part of the Rayleigh scatter portion of the scattered light beam is blocked by the filter. However, Yoo teaches that it is known in the art to provide one part of a Rayleigh scatter portion of the scattered light beam received by the objective module (109 @ figure 1) from the object (102 @ figure 1) is reflected by the beam splitter (108 figure 1) and the remaining part of the Rayleigh scatter portion of the scattered light beam is blocked by the filter (114 @ figure 1 and col.6 lines 8-28: e.g., For a particular probe wavelength and spectrograph configuration, the spatial position of the Rayleigh peak can be determined at one or more locations in spectrograph 120, and a block positioned to substantially prevent the Rayleigh scattered light from being detected. In some embodiments, a block may be positioned close to detector 131…use one or more filters to substantially remove the Rayleigh signal from the light). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Yoo for the purpose of improved detection of the PL or Raman signal.
Zhang in view of Yoo combination discloses all of features of claimed invention except for a long-pass filter. However, Vojnovic teaches that it is known in the art to provide a long-pass filter (65 @ figures 6A-6B and paragraph [0071]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Vojnovic for the purpose of detecting accuracy fluorescence from bacteria.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view Yoo as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lambert et al (US 2004/0127778 hereinafter “Lambert”).
Regarding claim 6; Zhang in view of Yoo combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the light beam emitted by the excitation module is a combination of a first laser beam and a second laser beam via a wavelength division multiplexer (WDM). However, Lambert teaches that it is known in the art to provide the light beam emitted by the excitation module (laser excitation 10 @ figure 5 combined single mode fiber 40 @ figures 6 and 7b) is a combination of a first laser beam (61 @ figure 7) and a second laser beam (62 @figure 7b) via a wavelength division multiplexer (it is inherent in the figure 7b that two or plurality of wavelength beams Lλ1, Lλ2, …, LλN input to single mode fiber 40 as wavelength division multiplexer). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Lambert for the purpose of reduce the energy/area rating of the excitation pulse to provide improved margins of safety.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view Yoo as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Sanchez et al (US 2012/0143065 hereinafter “Sanchez”).
Regarding claim 14; Zhang in view of Yoo combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the housing comprises a recess disposed on an exterior surface thereof and configured to receive a hand or at least one finger of a user. However, Sanchez teaches that it is known in the art to provide the housing (112 @ figure 1) comprises a recess (figures 1 and 5) disposed on an exterior surface (microendoscope @ figures 1 and 5) thereof and configured to receive a hand or at least one finger of a user (human forearm @ figures 1 and 5). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Sanchez for the purpose of improving optical clarity via the objective.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view Yoo as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ito et al (US 2016/0299170 hereinafter “Ito”).
Regarding claim 18; Zhang in view of Yoo combination discloses all of feature of claimed invention except for the objective module further comprises a miniaturized motor stage and the objective lens assembly is mounted on the miniaturized motor stage, wherein the miniaturized motor stage is configured to actuate the objective lens assembly to achieve a confocal measurement. However, Ito teaches that it is known in the art to provide the objective module (163 @ figure 2) further comprises a miniaturized motor stage (176 @ figure 2) and the objective lens assembly (165 @ figure 2) is mounted on the miniaturized motor stage (167 @ figure 2), wherein the miniaturized motor stage (167 @ figure 2) is configured to actuate the objective lens assembly (165 @ figure 2) to achieve a confocal measurement (paragraph [0161]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of claimed invention to combine the hand-held probe of Zhang with limitation above as taught by Ito for the purpose of improving the accuracy of the laser scanning, a high-resolution angle sensor (e.g., a rotary encoder) used to detect the accuracy of the motor rotation angle with high precision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11-13 and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a hand-held probe for a Raman spectroscopy system comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including the protruding end of the housing comprises an annulus structure having an opening, and a support structure extending from opposing ends of the annulus structure of the protruding end to the cylindrical main body of the housing, wherein a gap exists between the annulus structure and the cylindrical main body of the housing in a manner that the opening of the annulus is accessible from the gap in set forth of claim 11.
The prior art of record, taken alone or in combination, fails discloses or render obvious a hand-held probe for a Raman spectroscopy system comprising all the specific elements with the specific combination including a Raman spectroscopy system comprises a six-axis mechanical arm, wherein the hand-held probe is mounted on the six-axis mechanical arm, wherein the six-axis mechanical arm comprises a first joint disposed on a body of the Raman spectroscopy system, a second joint, a third joint disposed on the hand-held probe, a first extension movably connected to the first joint and the second joint, and a second extension movably connected to the second joint and the third joint in set forth of claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Zhao (US 2005/0128476) discloses the Raman spectroscope includes a housing detachably mountable to the microscope. The housing contains at least one source of radiation. One or more filters are positioned at desired angles across the beam path provided by the source of radiation.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANG H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-2425. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at 571-270-5789. 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.
/SN/
September 16, 2026
/SANG H NGUYEN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
