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 .
Status of Claims
The examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim 1. Claims 1 and 3-4 remain pending in the application. Claims 2 is cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09 September 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 3-4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 6-7 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues:
Oritz Egea teaches placing the calibration grating at a set of particular locations by manual or automatic displacement. Oritz Egea at paragraph [0070]. The calibration grating placed in the sample position (object space) and in various axial positions around said position are acquired. Id. at paragraph [0071]. Subsequently, the integrated two-dimensional images of the calibration grating, for each axial position, based on the total of the signal of each A-scan are obtained. Id. at paragraph [0072]. Thereafter, a mathematical relationship for correcting distortion is established. Id. at paragraphs [0077]-[0079].
Thus, the two-dimensional calibration grating of Oritz Egea should be placed orthogonal to the OCT device and moved to known positions in axial direction to obtain a series of two-dimensional images of the calibration grating. See id. at Claim 4. The two-dimensional images are integrated into a three-dimensional image which is used for calibrating and correcting the scanning distortion of OCT system. This method effectively creates a three-dimensional grid of calibration grating by axially moving a two-dimensional calibration grating. Oritz Egea’s method aims to obtain a three-dimensional grid structure without actually using a three-dimensional calibration target.
Therefore, Oritz Egea’s method is fundamentally different from the claimed method, where a perspective three-dimensional image of a planar calibration target is used, without moving it axially, for calibration.
In response, the examiner notes that the Oritz Egea reference teaches a method designed for calibrating any kind of OCT system (see Oritz Egea paragraph 0017). Oritz Egea is completely silent to the angle at which the calibration target is positioned during scanning with the OCT device. While applicant argues that the calibration target should be placed orthogonal to the OCT device, the examiner argues that it does not appear that the calibration target of Oritz Egea needs to be placed orthogonally to the optical axis of the OCT device.
In further response to applicant’s arguments, it is the examiner’s interpretation of the Oritz Egea reference that the two-dimensional images of the calibration grating are derived from three-dimensional image data. Paragraph 0071 of Oritz Egea recites “Acquiring 3D volumes of the calibration grating placed in the sample position (object space) and in various axial positions around said position”. The examiner interprets the acquisition of 3D volume information of the calibration grating as acquiring a three-dimensional images of the calibration grating (see paragraph 0018 which discuss obtaining topographical maps based on three-dimensional images; see also 0082-0084 for specific examples of the method which discuss calibrating based on acquired three-dimensional images). Paragraph 0072 then recites the acquisition of integrated two-dimensional images for each axial position, which is based on the 3D volumes obtained of the calibration target. Furthermore, while the Oritz Egea reference does recite axial movement to acquire images, Oritz Egea nonetheless acquires two-dimensional surface shape images of the top surface of the calibration target. Although applicant argues that the method of the instant application is performed without any axial movement, there is no indication in the claims, specification, or drawings of the instant application that recite the imaging performed must be stationary. Thus, since measurements of Oritz Egea result in two-dimensional surface shape images, acquired from 3D volume images of the calibration grating, it is the examiner’s position that the method of Oritz Egea is not fundamentally different from the method of the instant application.
On page 8 of applicant’s remarks, applicant argues:
Tripathi is cited merely for teaching placement of a calibration target with an angle. This limitation has been removed from Applicant’s claim 1, and therefore, the rejection based on Tripathi is deemed moot. Furthermore, while Tripathi may describe placing a calibration target with an angle to establish the location and orientation of the OCT data space, Tripathi also fails to teach or suggest extracting a two-dimensional image of a top surface from a perspective three-dimensional target image and using it for calibration of the OCT device.
With respect to calibration, Tripathi discloses that calibration of the OCT module involves both axial (depth direction) calibration and transverse (surface direction) calibration. See Tripathi at paragraphs [0094]-[0106]. Specifically, (1) axial calibration is performed using a calibration device 450 (FIGS. 6B-6D and paragraphs [0094]-[0100]); and (2) transverse calibration is performed using a patterned calibration target 500, 520, or 602 (FIGS. 8A, 8B, 9A and paragraphs [0101]-[0106]). For transverse calibration, Tripathi discloses using cross-sectional OCT images (see Figs. 9A, 9B) to detect the position of the pattern, rather than a top surface image. Consequently, Tripathi does not teach extracting a two-dimensional surface image from a perspective three-dimensional image of a calibration target and using it for calibration.
In response to applicant's arguments against the Tripathi reference individually, the examiner argues that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Tripathi teaches the acquisition of a perspective three-dimensional image of a calibration target (see Tripathi Fig. 10A-11B, paragraph 0109-0116; see also paragraph 0072, 0156). Since Tripathi also relates to calibrating OCT systems using calibration targets, a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to modify the method disclosed by Oritz Egea to teach taking a perspective three-dimensional image in the manner disclosed by Tripathi, as doing so beneficially improves the capability of the method of Oritz Egea to properly calibrate an OCT system for different optical alignments between the OCT system and the calibration target.
Therefore, for the reasons outlined above, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained. It is the examiner’s position is that the applicant’s arguments are not persuasive for the independent claim. Accordingly, the rejection of the dependent claims is sustained in the absence of persuasive arguments to the contrary.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. This is a new matter rejection.
Regarding claim 1, line 13 recites the limitation “obtaining a perspective three-dimensional image”. The term “perspective” is not defined in the specification in any way. The specification does not provide any indications, steps, or other references which would have conveyed the meaning of the limitation “obtaining a perspective three-dimensional image” to one having ordinary skill in the art. In fact, a skilled artisan would have interpreted the specification as appearing to convey that a perpendicular three-dimensional image is obtained due to the description of the sample measurement light being irradiated onto the calibration target in paragraph 0019 (“The sample measurement light (L1) is irradiated into the target (T) in a direction (z-axis direction, orthogonal to the x-axis and y-axis) perpendicular to the plane, and a three-dimensional tomography image of the target (T) can be obtained.”). While Fig. 4(A)-(B) show “perspective” three-dimensional image and a surface shape image extracted therefrom, the specification does not provide any indication that the three-dimensional image of Fig. 4(A) is the actual image obtained by the OCT device, or if Fig. 4(A) is merely a perspective view of the of the three-dimensional image obtained by the OCT device. Therefore, since the limitation identified above that is recited on line 13 of claim 1, and then recited again line 17 of claim 1, is newly amended into claim 1, this limitation is considered to be new matter. Thus, claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Claims 3-4 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
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 1 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 1, line 13 recites the limitation “obtaining a perspective three-dimensional image”. It is unclear what is meant by the term “perspective” in reference to the three-dimensional image. A three-dimensional image can be viewed from several different perspectives, and thus images of a three-dimensional object can be obtained from multiple perspectives as well. Thus, it is unclear which perspective of a three-dimensional image would need to be obtained to perform the claimed method. Further, since the term “perspective” is not given a specific definition or any indication of its desired interpretation in the specification, it is unclear to a skilled artisan what “obtaining a perspective three-dimensional image” would constitute. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 3-4 depend on claim 1 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner interprets the term “perspective” as including any capturing angle that can obtain a three-dimensional image of the calibration target.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oritz Egea et al. (US 2014/0107960 A1, of record), hereinafter Oritz Egea, in view of Kumar et al. (US 2019/0011250 A1, of record), hereinafter Kumar, and Tripathi et al. (US 2021/0169324 A1, of record), hereinafter Tripathi.
Regarding claim 1, Oritz Egea teaches a calibration method of an optical coherence tomography device (abstract “Method for calibrating and correcting the scanning distortion of any optical coherence tomography system”) which comprises a light source (paragraph 0066 “The light source is a superluminescent diode”) that generates a measurement light (L) irradiated to the surface of a calibration target (T) (paragraph 0065-0071; to acquire images of the calibration target, light from the light source must be irradiated to its surface; paragraph 0069 “a reference pattern, consisting of a flat reflective opaque surface with known printed or recorded spacing and especially in a graduated calibration mesh or grating printed on white paper with black ink”); and a photodetector (paragraphs 0051 and 0067) that detects an interference light (I) (paragraph 0067 “acquisition velocity is 25,000 A-scans (interferograms per second)”) and obtains the surface and inside image of the calibration target (T) (paragraph 0018-0019, 0043-0045, 0071-0072), comprising the steps of:
providing the calibration target (T) that is planar (paragraph 0037-0040 disclose planar targets to be used; see also paragraph 0069) and includes a pattern of predetermined shape formed on a top surface thereof (paragraph 0037-0040, see also Fig. 1a-c and paragraph 0069);
obtaining a three-dimensional image of the calibration target (T) (paragraph 0071 “Acquiring 3D volumes of the calibration grating placed in the sample position…”; see also paragraph 0002 and 0018) by scanning the calibration target (T) using the optical coherence tomography device (paragraph 0071 “images have been taken in the object space of the optical coherence tomography system”; see also paragraph 0021),
extracting a two-dimensional surface shape image of a top surface of the calibration target (T) from the obtained the three-dimensional image (paragraph 0072 “Obtaining integrated two-dimensional images of the calibration grating, for each axial position”; see also paragraphs 0002, 0018, 0043-0045, and 0054); and
calibrating the surface shape image of the calibration target (T) obtained by the optical coherence tomography device (calibration of the surface shape image of the calibration target described in paragraphs 0074-0080; see also paragraphs 0017-0018), according to the actual surface shape of the calibration target (T) (paragraphs 0074-0080; see also paragraphs 0030-0034).
Oritz Egea does not explicitly teach an optical coherence tomography device which comprises a beam splitter that splits the measurement light (L) into a reference light (R) and a sample measurement light (L1); a reference mirror that reflects the reference light (R) and generates a reflected reference light (R1); a scan unit that reflects the sample measuring light (L1) and directs the sample measuring light (L1) to the calibration target (T); and a photodetector that detects an interference light (I) formed by superimposing a reflected signal light (S) formed by reflecting the sample measurement light (L1) from the calibration target (T) and the reflected reference light (R1). However, Oritz Egea teaches that the disclosed calibration method can be used on any kind of optical coherence tomography system (see abstract and paragraph 0017). Further, to produce the interferograms recited in paragraph 0067, interference light between the light reflected off of the calibration target and reference light must occur.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to apply the calibration method of Oritz Egea to an optical coherence tomography device which comprises the elements of the instant claim outlined above, as optical coherence tomography devices which comprise these elements are known to the art, in view of Fig. 1 and paragraph 0107 of Kumar. A skilled artisan would have found the calibration method of Oritz Egea beneficial as it corrects the scanning distortion of an optical coherence tomography system (see Oritz Egea abstract, paragraph 0018).
Yet remaining, Oritz Egea, as modified by Kumar, does not teach obtaining a perspective three-dimensional image of the calibration target.
Tripathi, which relates to the calibration of an OCT device, teaches obtaining a perspective three-dimensional image of a calibration target (see Tripathi Fig. 10A-11B, paragraph 0109-0116; see also paragraph 0072, 0156).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the calibration method of Oritz Egea (as modified by Kumar) to obtain a perspective three-dimensional image of the calibration target, as taught by Tripathi, such that a two-dimensional surface shape image of a top surface of the calibration target is obtained from a perspective three-dimensional image. Enabling the collection of a perspective three-dimensional image in the manner disclosed by Tripathi beneficially improves the capability of the method of Oritz Egea to properly calibrate an OCT system for different optical alignments between the OCT system and the calibration target.
Regarding claim 3, Oritz Egea, as modified by Kumar and Tripathi, teaches the calibration method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the calibration target (T) is a non-transmissive target (T) through which the sample measurement light (L1) does not pass (Oritz Egea: paragraph 0069 “a reference pattern, consisting of a flat reflective opaque surface with known printed or recorded spacing and especially in a graduated calibration mesh or grating printed on white paper with black ink”; an opaque surface is non-transmissive and would prohibit sample measurement light from passing through the calibration target).
Regarding claim 4, Oritz Egea, as modified by Kumar and Tripathi, teaches the calibration method of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the calibration of the surface shape image is carried out by comparing the location of the pattern formed on the calibration target (T) in real space with the location of the pattern in the surface shape image of the calibration target (T) obtained with the optical coherence tomography device (Oritz Egea: paragraph 0076, see also paragraph 0030-0032) to obtain a distortion coefficient of the image obtained by the optical coherence tomography device (Oritz Egea: paragraph 0077-0079; the calibration factor, analytical functions, and transformation functions between the real coordinates and the coordinates of the image is equivalent to obtaining a distortion coefficient of the image; see also paragraph 0033 “obtaining a mathematical distortion relationship which defines a transformation between the local coordinates provided by the optical coherence tomography system and real coordinates”), and by correcting output image of the optical coherence tomography device using the distortion coefficient (Oritz Egea: paragraph 0080; see also paragraph 0034 “correcting the distortion by means of applying the mathematical distortion relationship obtained in phase iv) to the data obtained by the optical coherence tomography system”).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NOAH J. HANEY/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877