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 .
Notice to Applicant
Limitations appearing inside of {} are intended to indicate the limitations not taught by said prior art(s)/combinations.
Claims 21-40 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendments
The Amendment filled 05/29/2026 in response to Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 35, 38-39 are amended, and no new matter has been introduced. The objection to claim 35 is withdrawn in light of the amendment. The rejection of claim 39 under 35 USC §112(b) is withdrawn in light of the amendment. The rejection of claim 38 under 35 USC §101 is withdrawn in light of the amendment. The rejections of claims under 35 USC §§102 and 103 are maintained.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Remarks item 1. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7, filed 05/29/2026, with respect to the objection to claim 35 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 35 has been withdrawn.
Remarks item 2. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7, filed 05/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 39 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §112(b) rejection of claim 39 has been withdrawn.
Remarks item 3. Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7, filed 05/29/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 38 has been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC §101 rejection of claim 38 has been withdrawn.
Remarks item 4. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 8, filed 05/29/2026, shown below, regarding claims 21, 32, 33, 37, 39, and 40 35 under USC §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts, that Glasenapp (PCT Patent Publication No. WO 2011/039118) 1) does not disclose differently oriented images, and 2) that the different sectional images are taken in the same plan, which is not the same as capturing a region of an object in different first and second orientations.
PNG
media_image1.png
299
983
media_image1.png
Greyscale
1) However, Glasenapp teaches different imaging directions which is interpreted as is different orientations according to applicant’s own admission “orientation is meant in particular a direction or angle at which the elongated object is captured” which is either accomplished by rotating the object or the capturing device (specification page 4 lines 4-8, shown below).
PNG
media_image2.png
142
685
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The specification is consistent with examiner’s interpretation. Applicant has not provided evidence that the different imaging directions is not differently oriented images therefore examiner respectfully disagrees.
2) Applicant further states that differently oriented images implies two different planes. However, that distinction is not made is not in the claim. Additionally, applicant’s specification does provide indication that the same plane is imaged in at least “Insofar as several orientations are used in the present context, this has in particular the purpose of capturing or measuring a larger angular region (or region of the cross-section to be captured).“ (Specification p 4, lines 14-16),shown below,
PNG
media_image3.png
226
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
and (Specification p7, lines 31 page8, line 3), shown below.
PNG
media_image4.png
408
686
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Examiner is unsure that different imaging directions require different planes. Examiner respectfully requests applicant to recite this limitation explicitly in the claim and point to the support in the specification.
Applicant asserts that the optical path difference and geometric path difference of Glasenapp are not equivalent to the claimed “spatial reconstruction deviations … because the path differences in Glaseapp are local, ray-specific quantities and not an image wide spatial measure”. However, the recited spatial reconstruction deviations are not recited as an image wide spatial measure. Additionally, the specification (page 8, lines 32-33) discloses “the spatial reconstruction deviations are calculated by determining the spatial distances between a plurality of points of an interface of a layer”. Examiner interpretation of “spatial reconstruction deviation” agrees with the specification as distances between points, and is unclear how Glasenapp differs. Examiner respectfully recommends applicant to recite the feature of the spatial reconstruction deviation in the claim and to point to support in the specification. Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
Remarks item 5. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks page 11, filed 05/29/2026, shown below regarding claims 22-26, 29, 31, and 34-36 under USC §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the references of record, specifically the combination of Glasenapp, Jesacher and Zhou, fail to disclose “reconstruction of complete images” and “image-to-image comparison”.
PNG
media_image5.png
225
580
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, claim 21 does not recite “reconstruction of complete images”, nor an “image-to-image comparison”. Accordingly, examiner respectfully requests that the claim be amended to recite the limitation and provide support in the specification.
Regarding claim 22, applicant asserts that the combination of Glasenapp, Jesacher, and Zhou does not disclose “iterative determination of refractive indices”, Remarks, page 11, shown below.
PNG
media_image6.png
146
583
media_image6.png
Greyscale
However, Glasenapp teaches that “the method can also be used to iteratively determine the shape and position of further, deeper structural elements or refractive index interfaces, so that any samples with any refractive index distribution can be measured for their physical dimensions” (¶[0016]). Additionally, Zhou, a similar field of endeavor of OCT distortion correction, discloses wherein an execution rate of the capturing step differs from an execution rate of the determination step (Zhou, [Pg 801, Col 1, ¶2:31-34]; “OCT system operated at a 20 kHz A-scan rate, … OCRT reconstructions in <0.5 s.”, where the system operation frequency is interpreted as the execution rate of capturing steps and the reconstruction rate is interpreted as the execution rate of the determination step. The same can been applied to claims 23-26, 29, 31 and 34-36. Zhou is relied upon for teaching the iterative limitation, and for teaching the limitations that Glasenapp and Jesacher are not relied upon. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Remarks item 6. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pages 13-14, filed 05/29/2026, regarding claim 38 under USC §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Izatt “could not reasonably have suggested splitting geometric and refractive index value calculations in the matter of the claimed invention”, and that Iztta’s method “has no apparent relevance to the claimed invention or the methods of Glssenapp, Zhou and Jesacher”. However, Izatt is not relied upon for teaching “splitting geometric and refractive index value calculations”. Izatt is relied upon for teaching the claim limitations of claim 38 “A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 21”. Further, Izatt is from a similar field of endeavor of OCT image distortion correction by calculating index interface (refracting) surfaces from the raw optical coherence tomography ("OCT") dataset from an OCT system. Because Izatt is relied upon for teaching a processor and combined with the limitations as taught by the combination of Glasenapp, Zhou and Jesacher, examiner respectfully disagrees.
Remarks item 7. Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, page14, filed 05/29/2026, regarding claim 30 under USC §103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that Lee does not disclose/suggest the random search method for layer-wise index determination from which a predetermined set of index values, values are selected that minimize an objective function of image deviations. However, Lee discloses a fit line that that when the fit line matches the tooth-gum boundary there will be a maximum intensity accumulated value, and “The tooth is continuous surface, an optimal refractive index n can be obtained by extending the exposed tooth into the gum for correction. Furthermore, the acquisition of the refractive index of the boundary deformation approximation method is described below: (a) obtain the image of tissue surface, (b) obtain a fit line, (c) when the fit line matches the tooth-gum junction boundary, the fit line coincides with the tooth-gum junction boundary, there will be a maximum intensity accumulated value (FIG. 5B), the fit line is accumulated for judgment. In addition, this boundary deformation approximation method uses the refractive index n to obtain the curve matching the estimated value”. However, Lee teaches a fit line, which is interpreted as minimizing the spatial reconstruction deviations, from which the refractive index n is established, as follows
“There is OPL deformation in the gum (FIG. 5A), when the exposed tooth extends into the gum, as the information measured by OCT is OPL, there will be an obvious turn when there is medium like gum. The tooth is continuous surface, an optimal refractive index n can be obtained by extending the exposed tooth into the gum for correction. Furthermore, the acquisition of the refractive index of the boundary deformation approximation method is described below: (a) obtain the image of tissue surface, (b) obtain a fit line, (c) when the fit line matches the tooth-gum junction boundary, the fit line coincides with the tooth-gum junction boundary, there will be a maximum intensity accumulated value (FIG. 5B), the fit line is accumulated for judgment. In addition, this boundary deformation approximation method uses the refractive index n to obtain the curve matching the estimated value. The image after OPL correction is shown in FIG. 5C. The fit line matches the tooth-gum junction boundary. In addition, FIG. 5D shows the result of correction by said method. The fit line in FIG. 5C is removed, and the fit line matches the tooth-gum junction boundary.” ([Col 7:61- Col 8:15]).
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and interprets Lee as teaching the claim limitation.
For at least the above reasons, examiner respectfully disagrees with applicants arguments regarding the rejections of claims under 35 USC §103, found in Remarks items 4-7, on pages 7-14. Accordingly, the prior art meets the claimed limitation, and the rejections are maintained.
Remarks item 9. Applicant argues that the prior art not relied upon, Podoleanu, US Patent Publication No. 2008/0074617, teaches corrections based on local ray parameters, such as POD, angle of incidence and prescribed/ assumed refractive index, and serve for point-by-point reconstruction of the true position of deeper structures. The specification page 8 line 30 – page 9 line 10, of the current application shown below,
PNG
media_image7.png
95
697
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
278
689
media_image8.png
Greyscale
discloses spatial distances between points are determined, which are local ray parameters. Accordingly, examiner respectfully disagrees.
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.
Claims 21, 32, 33, 37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasenapp et al., WO 2011/039118 A1, (previously provided by examiner), hereinafter Glasenapp, in view of “Jesacher” (Jesacher et al. (2013) "Refractive index profiling of direct laser written waveguides: tomographic phase imaging," Optical Materials Express 3(9), pp.1223-1232. https://doi.org/10.1364/OME.3.001223), previously cited.
Regarding claim 21, Zhou discloses method for rectifying images of an elongated object} generated in particular by means of an optical coherence tomography method, wherein the method comprises the following steps:
a) a capturing step in which at least one region of the object is captured in at least one first orientation (
γ
1
) in a first image and in at least one second, different orientation (
γ
2
) in a second image (Glasenapp, ¶[0013]; several sectional images in the same plane, whereby the sectional images are obtained from different imaging directions; and See Fig 4, shown below, exhibits images of the region captured in a first orientation, OCT1, and second orientation, OCT2), by means of an optical coherence tomography method (¶[0021]; obtained by means of optical coherence;
PNG
media_image9.png
527
516
media_image9.png
Greyscale
);
as well as
b) a determination step, wherein corresponding reconstruction images of the at least one are region are generated on the basis of the captured images (See Fig. 4 OCT1 and OCT2 and ¶[0030] cross-sectional image), wherein at least one refractive index (n1, n2, n3) is determined iteratively for each of a plurality of layers of the object on the basis of spatial reconstruction deviations ([Symbol font/0x44]exy) between the first and second reconstruction images (Glasenapp, ¶[0016]; iteratively determine the shape and position of further, deeper structural elements or refractive index interfaces; ¶[0029]; the abbreviation OPD stands for the optical path difference and the abbreviation PPD stands for the geometric length (Physical Path Difference)(i.e., spatial reconstruction deviations); ¶[0044]; medium 1 with refractive index n, medium 2 of refractive index n',…, a medium 3 with the refractive index n" are determined. This ray tracing allows any sample with refractive index distributions to be measured for their physical dimensions).
c) a rectification step, wherein a rectified overall reconstruction image is calculated on the basis of the determined refractive indices (n1, n2, n3) (Glasenapp, ¶[0014]; coordinate information from the two sectional images only needs to be combined in order to reduce or correct errors caused by the refractive index; ¶[0044]; the position of particles (or coordinate correction) in medium 2 as well as the refractive index n' are precisely determined)
Glasenapp does not explicitly disclose images of an elongated object.
However, Jesacher discloses images of an elongated object (Jesacher, Fig 3 (b), shown below, discloses a direct laser writing wave guide which is an elongated object with a cavity and several layers)
PNG
media_image10.png
200
400
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Glasenapp and Jesacher are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of tomographic measurements based on refractive indices of elongated translucent materials. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include elongated object imaging as taught by Jesacher to the invention of Glasenapp. The motivation to do so would be to better understand the properties of the waveguide by developing measurement method for the elongated geometry.
Regarding claim 32, the combination of Glasenapp and Jesacher teaches the method according to claim 21. Glasenapp further teaches wherein in the capturing step the region is acquired in a plurality of further, different, orientations in a plurality of further images (Zhou, [Pg 794, Col 1 ¶3:1-6]; multiple OCT cross-sectional images (‘B-scans’) acquired at a diversity of angles to reconstruct isotropic, high-resolution, cross-sectional images with the superior axial coherence gating of conventional OCT extended to the lateral dimension).
Regarding claim 33, the combination of Glasenapp and Jesacher teaches the method according to claim 32. Glasenapp further teaches wherein in the determination step a plurality of corresponding reconstruction images of the region is generated (Glasenapp, ¶[0010]; evaluating at least two cross-sectional images that capture the same plane in the sample from different imaging directions,; and See Fig. 4 exhibits OCT1 and OCT2, and See Fig 5 exhibits OCT1, OCT2 and OCT3, i.e., a plurality of corresponding images, ), and the refractive indices (n1, n2, n3) are iteratively determined on the basis of spatial reconstruction deviations ([Symbol font/0x44]exy) between the plurality of corresponding reconstruction images (Glasenapp, ¶[0016]; iteratively determine the shape and position of further, deeper structural elements or refractive index interfaces, so that any samples with any refractive index distribution can be measured for their physical dimensions; ¶[0044]; n, n’ and n” for medium 1, 2 and 3, respectively; ¶[0032]; the physical path length PPD is distorted by the factor n of the measured optical path length OPD).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of Glasenapp and Jesacher, teaches the method according to claim 21. Jesacher further teaches wherein the elongated object has a length which is at least 10 times as great as a width and/or is hollow on the inside at least in sections and/or has no cavity at least in sections and/or has several layers, in particular with different materials, preferably with different refractive indices, and/or comprises a single- or multi-layer tube, or a single- or multi-layer hose, or a single- or multi-layer cable, or a single- or multi-layer wire, or a single- or multi-layer catheter (Jesacher, Fig 3 (b), shown above, discloses a direct laser writing wave guide which is an elongated object with a cavity and several layers).
Claim 39 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 21.
Claim 40 is similarly analyzed as analogous claim 21.
Claims 22-26, 29, 31, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasenapp in view of Jesacher, and further in view of “Zhou” (Kevin C. ZHOU et al., Optical Coherence Refraction Tomography, Nature Photonics, Vol. 13, November 2019, pages 794-802.), as listed in the IDS.
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Glasenapp and Jesacher teaches the method according to claim 21. Glasenapp further teaches wherein the capturing step and/or the determination step are each done periodically repeatedly or event-controlled, {wherein an execution rate of the capturing step differs from an execution rate of the determination step, provided that both} steps are done periodically repeatedly (¶[0016]; This method can also be used to iteratively determine the shape and position of further, deeper structural elements or refractive index interfaces, so that any samples with any refractive index distribution can be measured for their physical dimensions.) The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein an execution rate of the capturing step differs from an execution rate of the determination step.
However, Zhou, in a similar field of endeavor of OCT distortion correction, discloses wherein an execution rate of the capturing step differs from an execution rate of the determination step (Zhou, [Pg 801, Col 1, ¶2:31-34]; OCT system operated at a 20 kHz A-scan rate, … OCRT reconstructions in <0.5 s.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include periodic image captures and slower execution rate of the determination step as taught by Zhou to the combined invention of Glasenapp and Jesacher. The motivation to do so would be to accommodate registration and averaging needed in reconstructing images during the determination step.
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Glasenapp and Jesacher teaches the method according to claim 21. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein for each of the layers of the object the at least one refractive index (n1, n2, n3) is determined with an optimisation method, in which an objective function calculated from the spatial reconstruction deviations.
However, Zhou further teaches wherein for each of the layers of the object the at least one refractive index (n1, n2, n3) is determined with an optimisation method, in which an objective function calculated from the spatial reconstruction deviations ([Symbol font/0x44]exy) is minimised (Zhou, Pg 795, §Optimization by joint registration…, ln:14-16]; the MSE between which and the raw B-scan data was to be minimized with respect to the forward model parameters).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include minimizing the objective function as taught by Zhou to the combined invention of Glasenapp and Jesacher. The motivation to do so would be to reduce the refractive index distribution contrast, improving the corrections to the index induced distortions.
Regarding claim 24 the combination of Glasenapp, Jesacher, and Zhou teaches the method according to claim 23. Glasenapp further teaches wherein the objective function calculated from the spatial reconstruction deviations ([Symbol font/0x44]exy) is a multi-dimensional objective function for which a set of refractive indices (n1, n2, n3) for the layers of the object (Glasenapp, See equations shown below (referring to ¶[0043] of the English translation, and excerpt from the untranslated document, page 11, shown below) exhibits multidimensional objective functions; and ¶[0044]; The 3 unknowns xa za and n' existing in this system of equations can thus be reliably determined from the 4 equations; and refractive indices n, n’ and n” of medium 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
PNG
media_image11.png
64
188
media_image11.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image12.png
70
448
media_image12.png
Greyscale
).
Zhou further teaches which minimises the multi-dimensional objective function, is determined by the optimisation method (Zhou, Pg 795, §”Optimization by joint registration…”, ln:14-16]; the MSE between which and the raw B-scan data was to be minimized with respect to the forward model parameters).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Glasenapp and Jesacher teaches the method according to claim 21. The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein first the at least one refractive index (n1) of the first layer adjacent to a surface of the object is determined with an optimisation method.
However, Zhou further teaches wherein first the at least one refractive index (n1) of the first layer adjacent to a surface of the object is determined with an optimisation method (Zhou [Pg 795, Col 2, §”Optimization by joint registration…”, ln: 1-4]; To provide feedback on the accuracy of nA(x,z) to aid its optimization, we required a differentiable metric that quantifies the degree of joint registration among all the B-scans).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Glasenapp, Jesacher, and Zhou teaches the method according to claim 25. Glasenapp further teaches wherein the at least one refractive index (n1, n2, n3), starting from the first layer, is successively determined for each further layer, which in particular adjoins the first layer or a respective preceding layer (Glasenapp, ¶[0016]; This method can also be used to iteratively determine the shape and position of further, deeper (i.e., successive) structural elements or refractive index interfaces, so that any samples with any refractive index distribution can be measured for their physical dimensions), {using an optimization method}.
Zhou further teaches using an optimisation method (Zhou [Pg 795, Col 2, §”Optimization by joint registration…”, ln: 1-4]; optimization).
Regarding claim 29, the combination of Glasenapp, Jesacher, and Zhou teaches the method according to claim 23. Zhou further teaches wherein the at least one refractive index (n1, n2, n3) for each of the layers is determined with a grid search method that minimizes the objective function (Zhou, [Pg 795, Col 2, §”Refraction Correction”, ¶1:13-17]; The parameterization we chose was a sum of a regularly spaced grid of Gaussian kernels such that nA(x,z) is differentiable everywhere and minimizes the effects of the ‘staircase’ artefacts stemming from discretization onto a cartesian grid).
Regarding claim 31, the combination of Glasenapp, Jesacher, and Zhou teaches the method according to claim 23. Zhou further teaches wherein the at least one refractive index (n1, n2, n3) for each of the layers is determined with a gradient method that minimizes the objective function (Zhou, [p 803, §Methods, Numerical Optimization, Col 2, ¶1]; For all samples we ran gradient descent for 200–500 iterations with 2–3 min per iteration).
Regarding claim 34, the combination of Glasenapp, and Jesacher teaches the method according to claim 21. Glasenapp teaches {the capturing step is carried out for one or a plurality of further, at least partially overlapping, regions of the object},
wherein each of the further regions of the object is captured from at least two different orientations (
γ
1
,
γ
2
) (Glasenapp, ¶[0010]; at least two cross-sectional images that capture the same plane in the sample from different imaging directions.), and
wherein in the determination step for each region of the object that is captured from at least two orientations (
γ
1
,
γ
2
) the refractive indices (n1, n2, n3) of the materials of the layers of the object are determined (Glasenapp, ¶[0044]; medium 1, 2 and 3 with refractive index n, n’, and n”, respectively).
The combination does not explicitly disclose wherein the capturing step is carried out for one or a plurality of further, at least partially overlapping, regions of the object.
However, Zhou further teaches wherein the capturing step is carried out for one or a plurality of further, at least partially overlapping, regions of the object (Zhou, Fig 1b exhibits the scanning regions at least partially overlap),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include partially overlapping regions as taught by Zhou to the combined invention of Glasenapp and Jesacher. The motivation to do so would be to modify the spacing to improve the lateral to axial resolution.
Regarding claim 35, the combination of Glasenapp, Jesacher, and Zhou teaches the method according to claim 21. Zhou further teaches wherein an angle between the first orientation (
γ
1
) and the second orientation (
γ
2
) is a value between 10° and 120° (Zhou, Fig 3 exhibits angle spacing 45[Symbol font/0xB0], 30[Symbol font/0xB0], 20[Symbol font/0xB0], and 12[Symbol font/0xB0]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include angles in the range of 10-120° as taught by Zhou to the combined invention of Glasenapp and Jesacher. The motivation to do so would be to increase or decrease the angle based upon the lateral-axial resolution.
Regarding claim 36, the combination of Glasenapp, Jesacher, and Zhou teaches the method according to claim 32. Zhou further teaches wherein an angle between said plurality of further orientations each has a value between 40° and 100° (Zhou, Fig 3 exhibits angle spacing 45[Symbol font/0xB0], 30[Symbol font/0xB0], 20[Symbol font/0xB0], and 12[Symbol font/0xB0]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include angles in the range of 10-120° as taught by Zhou to the combined invention of Glasenapp and Jesacher. The motivation to do so would be to increase or decrease the angle based upon the lateral-axial resolution.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasenapp in view of Jesacher, and further in view of Izatt et al. (US 20110032533 A1), hereinafter Izatt.
Regarding claim 38, the combination of Glasenapp and Jesacher teaches the method according to claim 21. The combination does not explicitly disclose a computer-readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 21.
However Izatt teaches a computer-readable medium comprising a plurality of instructions which, when executed by at least one processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 21 (Izatt, ¶[0046]; implemented using a computer readable medium having stored thereon executable instructions that when executed by the processor of a computer control the processor to perform steps).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include computer-readable medium and processor taught by Izatt to the combined invention of Glasenapp and Jesacher. The motivation to do so would be to carry out acquisition, processing and computations which are not feasible actions to be carried out in the human mind or with pen and paper alone.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Glasenapp in view of Jesacher, and further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Lee et al., (US 10,426,346 B2), hereinafter, Lee.
Regarding claim 30, the combination of Glasenapp, Jesacher, and Zhou disclose the method according to claim 23. The combination does not disclose wherein the at least one refractive index (n1, n2, n3) for each of the layers is determined with a random search method, wherein a refractive index (n1, n2, n3) is selected from a set of predetermined refractive indices such that the objective function is minimized.
However, Lee discloses wherein the at least one refractive index (n1, n2, n3) for each of the layers is determined with a random search method, wherein a refractive index (n1, n2, n3) is selected from a set of predetermined refractive indices such that the objective function is minimized (Lee, [Col 7:25-32]; Refractive index prediction method: Estimate the initial value of the refractive index…the information source of the initial refractive index value can come from the database, ex vivo Measurement results, literature data; [Col 7:61-Col 8:15] There is OPL deformation in the gum (FIG. 5A), when the exposed tooth extends into the gum, as the information measured by OCT is OPL, there will be an obvious turn when there is medium like gum. The tooth is continuous surface, an optimal refractive index n can be obtained by extending the exposed tooth into the gum for correction. Furthermore, the acquisition of the refractive index of the boundary deformation approximation method is described below: (a) obtain the image of tissue surface, (b) obtain a fit line, (c) when the fit line matches the tooth-gum junction boundary, the fit line coincides with the tooth-gum junction boundary, there will be a maximum intensity accumulated value (FIG. 5B), the fit line is accumulated for judgment. In addition, this boundary deformation approximation method uses the refractive index n to obtain the curve matching the estimated value. The image after OPL correction is shown in FIG. 5C. The fit line matches the tooth-gum junction boundary. In addition, FIG. 5D shows the result of correction by said method. The fit line in FIG. 5C is removed, and the fit line matches the tooth-gum junction boundary.)
Glasenapp and Lee are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor of a refractive index compensation and optical path correction functions for OCT imaging. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a set of predetermined refractive indices as taught by Lee to the combined invention of Glasenapp and Jesacher. The motivation to do so would be because this initial refractive index is applicable to different materials with slightly different refractive indexes, and thereby serves as an appropriate initialization value.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 27 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.
Claim 28 is objected to as it depends from an objected claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited PTO-892 for full citation(s).
Izatt (US 20200340798 A1) teaches calculating the refractive index (RI) distribution using multiple scan angles to dewarp the OCT image.
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 CHANDHANA PEDAPATI whose telephone number is 571-272-5325. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-6pm (ET).
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, Chan Park can be reached at 571-272-7409. 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.
/CHANDHANA PEDAPATI/Examiner, Art Unit 2669 /CHAN S PARK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2669
Prosecution Insights