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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 6-7, 13-14, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalevsky et al. (US 2020/0281451 A1) in view of Miyata et al. (US 2020/0397269 A1).
Consider claim 1, Zalevsky teaches a system for imaging through a scattering medium, the system comprising: a spatial and temporal coherent light source for generating an illumination beam ([0008], [0059], and [0071]) to illuminate an object to be imaged through a scattering medium, so as to project an array of spots on the object ([0032], [0051], [0068], [0071] – [0076], and [0140]; Fig. 2A); an imaging sensor for capturing an image of the object ([0071], [0073], and Fig. 2A ); an optical arrangement comprising: a first optical setup to capture light transmitted through or reflected off the object and focus the captured light onto a diffractive optical element (DOE) configured to transmit ballistic photons of the captured light arriving from the object while blocking scattered photons ([0049] – [0054], [0056], [0063] – [0064]); and a second optical setup to capture light transmitted by the DOE and focus that light onto an imaging plane of the imaging sensor ([0071] – [0076], and Fig. 2A), an insertion tube comprising a single core optical fiber or multicore optical fibers ([0140] and Fig. 9).
However, Zalevsky does not explicitly teach wherein an end of the insertion tube is configured to be manipulated to generate a rapidly laterally-shifting illumination beam to project a speckle pattern of light spots on the object through the scattering medium, wherein a location and amplitude of each of the light spots change over time by rapidly-shifting the end of the insertion tube in a plane substantially orthogonal to a direction of the illumination beam.
Miyata teaches wherein an end of the insertion tube is configured to be manipulated to generate a rapidly laterally-shifting illumination beam to project a speckle pattern of light spots on the object through the scattering medium ([0040], [0070] – [0078], [0085] – [0088], [0095] – [0096]), wherein a location and amplitude of each of the light spots change over time by rapidly-shifting the end of the insertion tube in a plane substantially orthogonal to a direction of the illumination beam ([0040], [0070] – [0078], [0085] – [0088], [0095] – [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of generating a speckle pattern of light spots because such incorporation would help identify regions with different conditions or properties of the surface of an object. [0007] and [0057].
Consider claim 6, Zalevsky teaches the light source is a laser source ([0017] and [0059]).
Consider claim 7, Zalevsky teaches the laser source is a pulsed laser source ([0018] and [0059]).
Consider claim 13, Zalevsky teaches the system incorporated in an endoscope ([0019], [0140] – [0141]).
Consider claim 14, claim 14 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 1. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 17, claim 17 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 6. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 18, claim 18 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 7. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 19, claim 19 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 8. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalevsky et al. (US 2020/0281451 A1) in view of Miyata et al. (US 2020/0397269 A1) and Tissot (US 2016/0146998 A1).
Consider claim 9, the combination of Zalevsky and Miyata teaches all the limitations in claim 8 but does not explicitly teach one or more vibrators to cause the lateral shifts.
Tissot teaches one or more vibrators to cause the lateral shifts ([0036] – [0038]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of using vibrators to cause the lateral shifts because such incorporation would dynamically change the focus of the resulting light spot. [0036].
Consider claim 20, claim 20 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 9. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 10-12 and 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalevsky et al. (US 2020/0281451 A1) in view of Miyata et al. (US 2020/0397269 A1) and Shimamoto et al. (US 2019/0335986 A1).
Consider claim 10, Zalevsky teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but does not explicitly teach a displacer to displace the light source and an objective end of the optical arrangement to perform scanning of the object.
Shimamoto teaches a displacer to displace the light source and an objective end of the optical arrangement to perform scanning of the object ([0100] – [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of displacing the light source and an objective end of the optical arrangement because such incorporation would allow alignment of the final focus position with respect to the focal plane of the projection optical system and alignment between the center of a spot of illumination light formed at the final focus position and the optical axis of the projection optical system. [0101].
Consider claim 11, Shimamoto teaches the displacer is configured to displace the light source and the objective end of the optical arrangement in a plane substantially orthogonal to a direction of the illumination beam ([0100] – [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of displacing the light source and an objective end of the optical arrangement because such incorporation would allow alignment of the final focus position with respect to the focal plane of the projection optical system and alignment between the center of a spot of illumination light formed at the final focus position and the optical axis of the projection optical system. [0101].
Consider claim 12, Shimamoto teaches the displacer is configured to displace the light source and the objective end of the optical arrangement along an axis substantially parallel to a direction of the illumination beam ([0100] – [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known technique of displacing the light source and an objective end of the optical arrangement because such incorporation would allow alignment of the final focus position with respect to the focal plane of the projection optical system and alignment between the center of a spot of illumination light formed at the final focus position and the optical axis of the projection optical system. [0101].
Consider claim 21, claim 21 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 10. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 22, claim 22 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 11. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Consider claim 23, claim 23 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 12. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 2-4 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalevsky et al. (US 2020/0281451 A1) in view of Miyata et al. (US 2020/0397269 A1) and Rostoker (5,734,155).
Consider claim 2, the combination of Zalevsky and Miyata teaches all the limitations in claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the DOE comprises an array of diffractive lenses.
Rostoker teaches the DOE comprises an array of diffractive lenses (col. 6, line 31 – col. 7, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known element of an array of diffractive lenses because such incorporation would provide a complete two-dimensional representation of the incident image. Col. 2, lines 7-20.
Consider claim 3, Rostoker teaches the array of diffractive lenses comprises rows and columns of diffractive lenses (col. 6, line 31 – col. 7, line 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known element of an array of diffractive lenses because such incorporation would provide a complete two-dimensional representation of the incident image. Col. 2, lines 7-20.
Consider claim 4, Rostoker teaches the diffractive lenses are located at intersections of the rows and columns (col. 6, line 31 – col. 7, line 7; Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known element of an array of diffractive lenses because such incorporation would provide a complete two-dimensional representation of the incident image. Col. 2, lines 7-20.
Consider claim 15, claim 15 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 2. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
Claim(s) 5 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zalevsky et al. (US 2020/0281451 A1) in view of Miyata et al. (US 2020/0397269 A1), Rostoker (5,734,155), and Lamontagne (US 2019/0011609 A1).
Consider claim 5, the combination of Zalevsky, Miyata, and Rostoker teaches all the limitations in claim 2 but does not explicitly teach each diffractive lens is defined by a circular edge and comprises a toroidal groove surrounding a central circular raised plateau.
Lamontagne teaches each diffractive lens is defined by a circular edge and comprises a toroidal groove surrounding a central circular raised plateau ([0066], [0071] – [0072], and [0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the known element of diffractive lens that is defined by a circular edge and comprises a toroidal groove surrounding a central circular raised plateau because such incorporation would improve performances when compared to more traditional assemblies involving a radial play between the components. [0095].
Consider claim 16, claim 16 recites the method implemented by the system recited in claim 5. Thus, it is rejected for the same reasons.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TAT CHI CHIO whose telephone number is (571)272-9563. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 10am-5pm.
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, JAMIE J ATALA can be reached at 571-272-7384. 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.
/TAT C CHIO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2486