www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and TrademarkOffice
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`16/557,033
`
`08/30/2019
`
`Edward K. Y. Jung
`
`WM1-0002-US
`
`8503
`
`Constellation Law Group, PLLC
`P.O. Box 580
`Tracyton, WA 98393
`
`MOHAMMED, SHAHDEEP
`
`3793
`
`09/01/2022
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`Thetime period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`admin @constellationlaw.com
`dale @constellationlaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`85-104 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) ___ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`Cj] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 85-104 is/are rejected.
`S)
`) © Claim(s)___is/are objected to.
`Cj) Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`S)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://Awww.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) )
`
`Application Papers
`10)( The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11) The drawing(s) filed on 08/30/2019 is/are: a)[¥) accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121 (d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)1) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`_—_c)L) None ofthe:
`b)L) Some**
`a)Q) All
`1.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2 Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.4.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`* See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`2)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`4) (J Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20220624
`
`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`16/557 ,033
`Jung etal.
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF) StatusExaminer
`SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED
`3793
`No
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`1) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 11/13/2019.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`
`2a)() This action is FINAL. 2b)¥)This action is non-final.
`3)02 An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)\0) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA or AIA Status
`
`The present application is being examined underthe pre-AlA first to invent provisions.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`Claim 86 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a
`
`tissue” in lines 2 and 4 should be amended to read —the a tissue--. Appropriate correction is
`
`required.
`
`Claim 87 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “an
`
`imaging portion of a device” in lines 1-2 and 3 should be amended to read — an theimaging
`
`portion of a thedevice --. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim 87 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a
`
`subject’s body”in lines 2 and 3should be amended to read —the a subject’s body--. Appropriate
`
`correction is required.
`
`Claim 89 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “an
`
`imaging portion of a device” in lines 1-2 should be amended to read — an theimaging portion
`
`of athedevice --. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim 90 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “an
`
`image inline 2 should be amended to read —the aimage--. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 3
`
`Claim 91 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a
`
`display” in line 2 should be amended to read —the adisplay--. Appropriate correction is
`
`required.
`
`Claim 92 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a
`
`display” in line 2 should be amended to read —the adisplay--. Appropriate correction is
`
`required.
`
`Claim 94 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a
`
`display” in line 2 should be amended to read —the adisplay--. Appropriate correction is
`
`required.
`
`Claim 94 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “the
`
`lighttransducer” in line 5 should be amended to read -the alight transducer--. Appropriate
`
`correction is required.
`
`Claim 95 is objected to because of the followinginformalities: the claim limitation “an
`
`image inline 2 should be amended to read —the aimage--. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim 96 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “an
`
`image inline 2 should be amended to read —the aimage--. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Claim 98 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a
`
`display” in line 2 should be amendedto read —the a display--. Appropriate correction is
`
`required.
`
`Claim 102 is objectedto because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a
`
`tissue” in line 2 should be amended to read —the a tissue--. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 4
`
`Claim 102 is objectedto because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “a
`
`fieldof view” in line5 shouldbe amendedto read -the afield of view--. Appropriate
`
`correction is required.
`
`Claim Interpretation
`
`The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
`
`(f) Elementin Claim for a Combination. —An elementina claim fora
`combination may be expressed as a means or step for performinga 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 describedinthe specification and equivalents thereof.
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
`
`Anelementina claim for a combination may be expressedas a means or step for
`performinga 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 describedinthe specification and equivalents
`thereof.
`
`The claims inthis application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using
`
`the plain meaning of the claim languagein light of the specification as it would be understood
`
`by one of ordinary skillinthe art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element
`
`(alsocommonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the descriptionin the
`
`specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
`
`As explainedin MPEP § 2181, subsection |, claim limitations that meet the following
`
`three-prong testwill be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA35 U.S.C. 112, sixth
`
`paragraph:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page5S
`
`(A)
`
`the claim limitation uses the term “means”or “step” or aterm used as a substitute for
`
`“means”that is a generic placeholder (also calleda nonce term ora non-structural term
`
`having no specificstructural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
`
`(B)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholderis modified by functional
`
`language, typically, but not alwayslinked by the transition word “for”(e.g., “means for”)
`
`or another linking word or phrase, such as “configuredto” or “so that”; and
`
`(C)
`
`the term “means”or “step” or the generic placeholderis 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 limitationis to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C.
`
`112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitationis
`
`interpreted under35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 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.
`
`Absenceof 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-AlA 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-AlA 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 inthis application that use the word “means”(or “step”) are being
`
`interpreted under35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 6
`
`otherwiseindicated inan Office action. Conversely, claim limitations inthis 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, exceptas otherwise indicated inan Office action.
`
`This application includes one or moreclaim 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 thatis coupled with
`
`functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the
`
`genericplaceholderis not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
`
`“means for positioning...” in claim 104;
`
`“means for emitting at least one of infrared...” in claim 104;
`
`“means for receiving...” inclaim 104;
`
`“means for processing...” in claim 104;
`
`“means for emitting the image data...” in claim 104;
`
`Becausethis/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or
`
`pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the
`
`corresponding structure described inthe 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-AlA 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-AlA 35 U.S.C. 112,
`
`sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2)
`
`presenta sufficient showing thatthe claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 7
`
`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.
`
`Double Patenting
`
`The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded
`
`in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise
`
`extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple
`
`assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not
`
`identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference
`
`claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious
`
`over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., Inre Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998): Inre
`
`Goodman,11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); Inre Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 1985); Inre Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164
`
`USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
`
`Atimely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to
`
`overcome an actualorprovisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the
`
`reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned withthe examined application,
`
`or claims an invention madeas a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research
`
`agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under thefirst inventor to file
`
`provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146et seq. for applications not subject
`
`to examination under thefirst inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be
`
`signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
`
`The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Pleasevisit
`
`www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 8
`
`determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A
`
`web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may befilled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal
`
`Disclaimer that meetsall requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission.
`
`For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to
`
`www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eT D-info-l.jsp.
`
`Claims 85-104 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 8, 187, 189. Although the claims at issue are not
`
`identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present Application and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8, 187, 189 are directed to an optical imaging system and method comprising light
`
`emitter, receiver, circuitry (processor) for processing the imaging data.
`
`Claims 85-104 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being
`
`unpatentable over claims 1-33 of U.S. Patent No. 10, 448, 815. Although the claims at issue are not
`
`identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both the present Application and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10, 448, 815are directed to an optical imaging system and method comprising light
`
`emitter, receiver, circuitry (processor) for processing the imaging data. Furthermore, the claims of US
`
`Patent No. 10, 448, 815 is narrower thanthe claims of current application.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`In the eventthe determination of the status of the application as subjectto AIA35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subjectto pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction
`
`of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 9
`
`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 pre-AlA35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled toa patent unless —
`
`(b) the invention was patented or describedina printed publicationin this ora
`foreign country or in publicuse or on sale inthis country, more than one year
`prior to the date of application for patent in the United States.
`
`Claims 85-87, 89, 92, 94, 96-101, and 103-14 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 102
`
`(b) as being anticipated by Rava et al. (US 6,690,966; hereinafter Rava).
`
`Regarding claim 85, Rava discloses a method of molecular spectroscopyto provide for
`
`the diagnosis of tissue. Rava shows a method of obtaining in vivo images (see col. 7, lines 31-
`
`33; col. 12, lines 36-39), comprising: positioning at least an imaging portion of a device intoan
`
`in vivo region withina subject’s body (fig. 1B shows a imagingand ablation catheter 10 placed
`
`inside a lumen 30 of a subject); emitting at least one of infrared or near infrared illuminating
`
`light from the imaging portion of the device onto a tissue within the subject’s body proximate
`
`the imaging portion (see fig. 1A, 1B and 16A; col. 2, lines 12-41); receiving reflected light at the
`
`imaging portion of the device that is reflected from the tissue (see fig. 1A, 1B and 164A;col. 2,
`
`lines 12-41); processing the receiving reflected light to provide imaging data indicative of an
`
`image of the tissue (see col. 7, lines 31-33; col. 12, lines 36-39); emitting the imaging data
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 10
`
`indicative of the image of the tissue from the in vivo region to a display external to the subject’s
`
`body for display (see 223 infig. 1A).
`
`Regarding claim 86, Rava showsprojecting ablation energy ontotissue as part of an
`
`ablation operation (see col.5, lines 25-36).
`
`Regarding claim 87, Rava showspositioning at least an imaging portion of a device into
`
`a blood vessel withina subject’s body (see abstract; fig. 1B and 16A).
`
`Regarding claim 89, Rava showspositioningalight conductive structure betweena light
`
`transducer and the tissue within the subject’s body (see fig. 1B).
`
`Regarding claim 92, Rava shows deployingatransmitting device at least partly withina
`
`field of view of the imaging portion of the device (see col. 7, lines 50-67).
`
`Regarding claim 94, Rava shows emitting the imaging data indicative of the image of the
`
`tissue from the in vivo region via a lens and the light transducer (see col. 7, lines 50-67 and fig.
`
`1A).
`
`Regarding claim 96, Rava showsprocessing the received reflected light to provide
`
`imaging data including optical-range frequency information from the imageof the tissue (col. 2,
`
`lines 27-51).
`
`Regarding claim 97, Rava showsdisplaying the image ofthe tissue at the display
`
`external to the subject’s body (see 223 in fig. 1A).
`
`Regarding claim 98, Rava showspassing the imagedata indicative of the image of the
`
`tissue out of the subject’s body viaa portion of the at leave on of a veinor an artery (see col. 2,
`
`lines 12-27).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 11
`
`Regarding claim 99, Rava showsurging the light transducer toward the tissue withina
`
`field of view of the light transducer while emitting at least one of infrared or near-infrared
`
`illuminating light from the light transducer of the device (see fig. 1A; see col. 7, lines 50-67).
`
`Regarding claim 100, Rava shows receiving at leasta portion of the receiving reflected
`
`light via the light transducer (see fig. 1A; see col. 7, lines 50-67).
`
`Regarding claim 101, Rava shows receiving at least a portion of the reflecting light via
`
`one or more other transducers arranged in a common grid with the light transducer (see fig.
`
`1A).
`
`Regarding claim 103, Rava discloses a method of molecular spectroscopy to provide for
`
`the diagnosis of tissue. Rava shows a system (see fig. 1A) comprising: circuitry for positioning at
`
`least an imaging portion of a device into an in vivo region withina subject’s body (fig. 1B shows
`
`a imagingand ablation catheter 10 placed inside a lumen 30 of a subject); circuitry for emitting
`
`at least one of infrared or near-infrared illuminating light from the imaging portion of the
`
`device onto a tissue within the subject’s body proximate the imaging portion (see fig. 1A, 1B
`
`and 16A; col. 2, lines 12-41)); circuitry for receiving reflected light at the imaging portion of the
`
`device that is reflected from the tissue (see fig. 1A, 1B and 16A;col. 2, lines 12-41); circuitry for
`
`processing the received reflected light to provide imaging data indicative of an image of the
`
`tissue (see col. 7, lines 31-33; col. 12, lines 36-39); and circuitry for emitting the imaging data
`
`indicative of the image of the tissue from the in vivo region to a display external to the subject’s
`
`body for display (see 223 infig. 1A).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 12
`
`Regarding claim 104, Rava discloses a method of molecular spectroscopy to provide for
`
`the diagnosis of tissue. Rava shows a system (see fig. 1A) comprising: means for positioning at
`
`least an imaging portion of a device into an in vivo region within a subject’s body (fig. 1B shows
`
`a imagingand ablation catheter 10 placed inside a lumen 30 of a subject); means for emitting at
`
`least one of infrared or near-infrared illuminating light from the imaging portion of the device
`
`onto a tissue within the subject’s body proximate the imaging portion (see fig. 1A, 1B and 16A;
`
`col. 2, lines 12-41); means for receiving reflected light at the imaging portion of the device that
`
`is reflected from the tissue; means for processing the received reflected light to provide
`
`imaging data indicative of an image of the tissue (see col. 7, lines 31-33; col. 12, lines 36-39);
`
`and circuitry for emitting the imaging data indicative of the image of the tissue from the in vivo
`
`regionto a display external to the subject’s body for display (see 223 infig. 1A).
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
`
`The following is a quotation of pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all
`
`obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
`
`(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically
`disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, ifthe differences between the
`subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject
`matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
`
`to a person having ordinary skillinthe art to which said subject matter pertains.
`Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was
`made.
`
`Claim 88 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rava et
`
`al. (US 6,690,966; hereinafter Rava) in view of Sweezeret al. (US 5,810,757; hereinafter
`
`Sweezer).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 13
`
`Regarding claim 88, Rava discloses the invention substantially as described inthe 102
`
`rejection above, but fails to explicitly state removing a volume of fluid from the a filed of view
`
`of the imaging portion of the device.
`
`Sweezer discloses a catheter system. Sweezerteaches removinga volume of blood
`
`from a filed of view (see abstract).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of oridnay skillinthe art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to haveutilized the teaching of removinga volume of blood fromafiled of
`
`view in the invention of Rava, as taught by Sweezer, to provide less obstructed image of blood
`
`vessel.
`
`Claim 90 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rava et
`
`al. (US 6,690,966; hereinafter Rava) in view of Moreno et al. (US 2001/0047137; hereinafter
`
`Moreno).
`
`Regarding claim 90, Rava discloses the invention substantially as described inthe 102
`
`rejection above, but fails to explicitly state providing shape information of one or more features
`
`of the tissue.
`
`Moreno discloses an optical system. Moreno teaches providing shape information of
`
`one or more features of the tissue (see par. [0070]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skillinthe art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to haveutilized providing shape information of one or more features of
`
`the tissue inthe invention of Rava, as taught by Moreno, to be able to detect vulnerable
`
`atherosclerotic plaques.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 14
`
`Claim 91 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rava et
`
`al. (US 6,690,966; hereinafter Rava) in view of LaFontaine et al. (US 6,026,814; hereinafter
`
`LaFountaine).
`
`Regarding claim 91 Rava discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102
`
`rejection above, but fails to explicitly state using an antenna.
`
`LaFountaine teaches using an antenna (see col. 6, lines 25-27).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skillinthe art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to have utilized using an antenna inthe invention of Rava, as taught by
`
`LaFountaine, to be able to provide a less intrusive method for imaging a blood vessel.
`
`Claims 93 and 95 are rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable
`
`over Rava et al. (US 6,690,966; hereinafter Rava) in view of Bonneret al. (US 2004/0082850;
`
`hereinafter Bonner).
`
`Regarding claim 93, Rava discloses the invention substantially as described inthe 102
`
`rejection above, but fails to explicitly state receiving at leasta portion of the reflected light that
`
`is reflected fromon or more tissue outside the intravascular system.
`
`Bonner teaches receiving at least a portion of the reflected light that is reflected from
`
`on or moretissue outside the intravascular system (see par. [0040], [0107], [0108]).
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skillinthe art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to haveutilized the teaching of receiving at least a portion of the reflected
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 15
`
`light that is reflected from on or more tissue outside the intravascular system inthe invention
`
`of Rava, as taught by Bonner,to be able to diagnose other part of the subject’s body.
`
`Regarding claim 95, Rava discloses the invention substantially as described inthe 102
`
`rejection above, but fails to explicitly state processing the received reflected light to provide
`
`imaging data including an anatomical reference structure relative to the tissue.
`
`Bonner teaches processing the received reflected light to provide imaging data including
`
`an anatomical reference structure relative to the tissue (see abstract; par. [0039], [0040],
`
`[0044].
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skillinthe art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to haveutilized the teaching of processing the received reflected light to
`
`provide imaging data including an anatomical reference structure relative to the tissue in the
`
`invention of Rava, as taught by Bonner, to be able to diagnose a occlusion in a blood vessel.
`
`Claim 102 is rejected under pre-AlA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rava et
`
`al. (US 6,690,966; hereinafter Rava) in view of Deckelbaum et al. (US 4,981,138; hereinafter
`
`Deckelbaum).
`
`Regarding claim 102, Rava discloses the invention substantially as described in the 102
`
`rejection above, but fails to explicitly state ablation operating using at least one of infrared or
`
`near-infrared illuminating light.
`
`Deckelbaum discloses endoscopic fiberoptic fluorescence spectrometer (see col. 5, lines
`
`10-13).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 16
`
`Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skillinthe art, at the time the
`
`invention was made, to haveutilized the teaching of ablation operating using at least one of
`
`infrared or near-infrared illuminating light in the invention of Rava, as taught by Deckelbaum, to
`
`to be able to use the same light source for imaging and ablation which would savecost in
`
`manufacturing the system, and to provide satisfactory experimental results in ablating plaque.
`
`Conclusion
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earliercommunications from the
`
`examinershould be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whosetelephone numberis (571)270-
`
`3134. The examiner can normally be reached Mondayto Friday, 9am to Spm.
`
`Examinerinterviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing
`
`using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview,applicantis
`
`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, William D Thomson can be reached on 571-272-3718. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization wherethis 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 Centeris 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 Centerand https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 16/557,033
`Art Unit: 3793
`
`Page 17
`
`information aboutfiling 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 (INUSA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
`
`/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
`
`