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 12/15/2025 in response to Non-Final Office Action mailed 07/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 21, 39, and 40 are amended, and no new matter has been introduced. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in light of the amended specification. Objections to the drawings have been withdrawn in light of the amended drawings. Objection to claims 21 and 39 have been withdrawn in light of the amended claims. The rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) has been withdrawn in light of the amended claim. The rejection to claims 21-40 under 35 U.S.C. §103 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments/remarks, see Remarks, on pages 8-12, filed 12/15/2025, with respect to the 35 USC §103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, upon further consideration, new grounds of rejection are made.
Claim Objections
Claim 35 is objected to because of the following informalities: variables, shown in the previous claim set (10/06/2022) are no longer visible and are showing instead as boxes.
PNG
media_image1.png
88
703
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 39, it is unclear what steps of claim 21 the device is performing. Examiner recommends writing this claim in independent form to overcome antecedent basis issues. For example, there could potentially be two different “elongated objects” introduced when considering both claims 21 and 39 together.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter (i.e., process machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) because the claim, reciting “a computer-readable medium”, is directed to a program/signal per se, mere information in the form of data, without a tangible medium. Note, it is not necessary for a claim to fall into a single category, as long as it is clear that it falls into at least one category (see MPEP §2106.03). Examiner recommends amending the claim to recite “non-transitory computer readable medium”.
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_image2.png
527
516
media_image2.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_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.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. 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_image4.png
64
188
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
70
448
media_image5.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)
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.
Podoleanu (US 20080074617), teaches OCT cross section images of a part of a curved object displayed by creating a series of image points and placing each image point into a corrected image in such a way that the positions of scattering points within the image coincide with or are at least closer to their real spatial distribution within the curved object.
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 5712727409. 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