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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 6/09/2026 has been entered. The Applicant amended claims 21, 24, 26 and 40. Claims 21, 23-24, 26-35 and 37-43, after correcting the claim numbers, are pending.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
The amended claims of this application show there are two claims are numbered as: “Claim 41 (Previously Presented)”, and “Claim 43” of the previous submission is renumbered as “Claim 42, (Previously Presented)”.
For the purpose of examination, the examiner considered the first “Claim 41. (Previously Presented)” as “Claim 41. (Previously Presented)”, second “Claim 41. (Previously Presented)” as “Claim 42. (Previously Presented)” and “Claim 42. (Previously Presented)” of this submission as “Claim 43. (Previously Presented)”. Appropriate correction accordingly 37 CFR 1.126 is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended independent claims 21 and 40 have been fully considered. The arguments are based on newly added limitations which were not previously rejected under art. A new ground of rejection has been made and applicant's argument is moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 21 and 24, 26 and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. (US 2007/0081166, of record) in view of Nielson et al. (US 2014/0219613, of record) and further in view of Nagashima et al. (US 2015/0016791, of record).
Regarding claim 21, Brown teaches an Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) imaging system (refer to US 2007/0081166; “optical coherence imaging devices and systems’, [0002]), comprising:
an OCT light source operable to emit an OCT light beam (Fig. 1, source 100; Figs. 1, 2 and 9, “Light enters along an optical fiber 110 from the OCT engine 100”, [0055-0056]); a beam splitter (beam splitter 200; [0066]; Fig. 9) operable to split the OCT light beam into a sample beam (Fig. 9, “the light to the sample arm optical path 220”, [0066]), and a reference beam (Fig. 9, reference beam path 221),
an OCT fiber assembly (probe 101 and an optical fiber 110 that connects the OCT engine, Fig. 9, [0066; 0069]) having a reference arm waveguide and a sample arm waveguide (Fig. 9 shows optical paths and the structures that guide the lights, a reference arm and a sample arm structure used to guide waves, microwaves, and light), the sample beam and the reference beam being respectively transferred to the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (see Fig. 9; sample arm optical path 220 and the reference are optical path 221, [0066]); wherein the reference arm waveguide includes a first core (light guide of lens sets) and the sample arm waveguide includes a second core (light guide with lens set), [Fig. 9]); and
a probe (probe 101, [0069], Fig. 9) that includes an optical element (optical fiber 110 and collimating assembly 111, splitter 200, handle 115 with beam path, and the arms, Fig. 9) positioned such that the reference arm waveguide provides the reference beam (reference beam through reference arm optical path 221, reference beam towards the mirror and returning beam from the mirror) and the sample arm waveguide provides the sample beam (sample beam through 220 sample arm optical path, sample beam towards the sample and returning from sample) to the same optical element (same element is splitter and collimating assembly 111; “the lights from the sample and reference arms reach the beamsplitter 200”, [0068]; Light enters along an optical fiber 110 from the OCT engine that exits the fiber and passes through a collimating assembly 111 at the base of the handle 115. The beamsplitter 200 sends some of the light to the sample arm optical path 220 and the rest of the light passes on to the reference arm optical path 221, [0066]; In path 220 one or more scanning mirrors 112 and through a relay lens set 113 light goes to the sample 114, Light is scattered from the sample 114 and passes back through the portable probe 101' to the optical fiber 110 and on to the OCT engine, [0056]; FIG. 9, the probe includes a reference arm, the light enters the probe 101 through an optical fiber 110, passes through a collimating assembly 111 at the base of the handle 115 and is incident on a beamsplitter 200. The beamsplitter 200 sends some of the light to the sample arm optical path 220 and the rest of the light from the beamsplitter 200 passes to the reference arm optical path 221, which consists of one or more focusing lenses 202, dispersion compensation elements 203, attenuation elements 204, and a reflecting mirror 205. The reflecting mirror 205 sends light back down the reference arm optical path 221 to the beamsplitter 200. The reflecting mirror 205 allow adjustment of the reference arm path length, [0066-0067]. Once the lights from the sample and reference arms reach the beamsplitter 200 it is recombined and passes through the collimating assembly 111 and back into the optical fiber 110. From this point it returns to the OCT engine., [0068]. Therefore, and a probe (probes 101, [0069], Fig. 9) that includes an optical element (optical fiber 110 and collimating assembly 111, splitter, Fig. 9) positioned such that the reference arm waveguide provides the reference beam, to the mirror 205, reference arm provides returned reference beam through path 221, from mirror 205, and the sample arm waveguide provides the sample beam, beam returned from the sample 114, through path 220, to the same optical element, that is splitter 200, beam path 115 as a handle, optical fiber 110 and collimating assembly 111 that connects the OCT engine, [0068-0069], as shown in Fig. 9); wherein the reference arm waveguide includes a first core (light guide of lens sets of reference arm optical path) and the sample arm waveguide includes a second core (light guide with lens set of sample arm optical path), [Fig. 9]);
Brown doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a common cladding structure disposed over the first core and the second core, the common cladding structure coupling the first core and the second core; wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a buffer disposed over the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide, the buffer being concentrically disposed over the common cladding structure, wherein the buffer improves a calibration of a generated OCT image by reducing axial movement of the sample arm waveguide and reference arm waveguide relative to one another.
Brown and Nielson are related as optical devices using waveguides.
Nielson teaches wherein the reference arm waveguide includes a first core, and the sample arm waveguide includes a second core (Fig. 6, wave guide 103, core fibers 106-1-106-5, [0048]); wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a cladding structure disposed over the first core and the second core (Fig. 6; cladding CL, outer ring encircling the core in each single-core fiber 106, [0049]), the cladding structure covers the first core and the second core; wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a buffer disposed over the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (Fig. 6, buffer 107, single-core fibers 106 are held in place by epoxy 107, [0050]), the buffer being concentrically disposed over the cladding structure (Fig. 6 shows buffer 107 being concentrically disposed over the cladding structure CL), wherein the buffer improves a calibration of a generated OCT image by reducing axial movement of the sample arm waveguide and reference arm waveguide relative to one another (Fig. 6 shows waveguides, equivalent to the sample arm waveguide and reference arm waveguide, are coupled together using the epoxy buffer that improves a calibration of a generated OCT image by reducing axial movement of the sample arm waveguide and reference arm waveguide relative to one another). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the imaging system of Brown wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a cladding structure disposed over the first core and the second core, the cladding structure joins the first core and the second core; wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a buffer disposed over the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide, the buffer being concentrically disposed over the cladding structure, wherein the buffer improves a calibration of a generated OCT image by reducing axial movement of the sample arm waveguide and reference arm waveguide relative to one another as taught by Nielson for the predictable advantage of improving the system reliability, fiber optic cladding and buffer systems are crucial for enhancing signal integrity, durability, and performance. Cladding also enables total internal reflection for low-loss, while buffer coatings provide mechanical protection.
The modified Brown doesn’t explicitly teach cladding is a common cladding and the common cladding structure coupling the first core and the second core.
Brown and Nagashima are related as optical devices using waveguides.
Nagashima teaches cladding is a common cladding and the common cladding structure coupling the first core and the second core (Fig. 1(a), seven cores 11, a cladding 12, cores are coated with the common cladding 12, and fiber coating 13, [0023], which is equivalent to buffer; instant application in paragraph [0038] clarified buffer as “coating or buffer”); the buffer 13 being concentrically disposed over the common cladding structure 12, [Fig. 1(a)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified imaging system of Brown wherein cladding is a common cladding and the common cladding structure coupling the first core and the second core, as taught by Nagashima for the predictable advantage of improving the performance and reliability of the cores by coupling the waveguides together by creating the cladding CL which aligns and maintains the offset distances within the cores, as well as easier to manufacture by using one common cladding, and also as Nagashima teaches plurality of multi-core optical fibers arranged parallel to one another with a common resin. Such a multi-core optical fiber ribbon is expected to allow a larger amount of information to be transmitted therethrough, [0003]).
Regarding claim 24, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 21 (see above), the OCT imaging system, further comprising: an imaging processor operable to generate the OCT image from an interference beam detected by an imaging detector (“OCT engine includes optics, electronics and/or software configured to acquire data used to generate OCT images of a sample”, [0017]; OCT imaging systems are typically divided into several subsystems including an optical engine, a processing unit and a scanning system, [0004]; “OCT device may further include a user interface configured to operate the display and control operation of an OCT engine in communication with the portable OCT device. The user interface may include an image acquisition trigger configured to acquire images of the sample and/or controls configured to adjust a scan pattern, a scan range, a scan rate and/or image processing option. The display may be configured to illustrate real time and/or saved images of the sample’, [0019]; “light from the sample and reference arms reach the beam splitter 200 it is recombined and passes through the collimating assembly 111 ... returns to the OCT engine [OCT Engine 100, Fig. 1] for acquisition and processing”, [0068]. “the image processing and control that typically happens in the OCT engine. .. control of the scanning mirrors and image processing and display to support the video display”, [0076]; “an image projector 402 can be used to display an image for the user 401. This image could be the OCT image from the sample 114 or information regarding the setup and state of the OCT system’, [0072]), wherein the probe operable to guide the sample beam onto a target and to receive a returned sample beam from the target (“In the sample arm optical path 220, the light is directed by the scanning mirrors 112, passes through a relay lens set 113, and onto the sample 114. Light scattered back by the sample 114 follows the sample arm optical path 220”, [0066]).
Regarding claim 26, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 24 (see above), wherein the beam splitter is operable to generate the interference beam from the returned sample beam and a returned reference beam (“a beamsplitter configured to receive light and provide a portion of the light to an optical path of the reference arm of the portable OCT device and provide a remaining portion of the light to an optical path of the sample’, [0022]; “The beamsplitter 200 sends some of the light to the sample arm optical path 220 and the rest of the light passes on to the reference arm optical path 221. .. light will go through the sample arm optical path 220 than through the reference arm optical path 221. In the sample arm optical path 220, the light is directed by the scanning mirrors 112, passes through a relay lens set 113, and onto the sample 114. Light scattered back by the sample 114 follows the sample arm optical path 220 in reverse back to the beamsplitter 200”, see [0022] and [0066)).
Regarding claim 39, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 21, (see above), Nagashima teaches wherein the common cladding structure is composed of glass (the cladding 12 are formed of silica glass, [0024]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. in view of Nielson et al. and Nagashima et al, as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Tanaka et al. (WO 2017094560, of record).
Regarding claim 23, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 21, wherein the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (Fig. 6) are within the buffer such that there exists substantially equivalent physical stretching and/ or compression on the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (Nielson: Fig. 6 shows waveguides are equally spaced, single-core optical fibers 106-1 through 106-7 enter the holder 104 with core CO and cladding CL. Fiber waveguides are within the buffer such that there exists substantially equivalent physical pattern [0051]. Therefore, waveguides are within the buffer such that there exists substantially equivalent physical stretching and/ or compression on the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide.
The modified Brown doesn’t explicitly teach the waveguides are twisted within the buffer such that there exists substantially equivalent physical stretching and/ or compression on the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide.
Brown and Tanaka are related as optical devices using waveguides. Tanaka teaches waveguides are twisted within the buffer such that there exists substantially equivalent physical stretching and/ or compression on the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (optical fiber cable 4 shown in FIG. 7 is obtained by twisting a predetermined number of optical fiber units, [page 11, paragraph 5 of the machine translation]; fiber cable with which it is possible to prevent cracks in a connection part that occur upon repeated squeezing as an optical fiber cable and separation between a color coated optical fiber and the connection part, while maintaining the advantages of an optical fiber ribbon core-wire and without losing the cable characteristics during high density mounting [abstract]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the imaging system of modified Brown to include the waveguides twisted within the buffer such that there exists substantially equivalent physical stretching and/ or compression on the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide, as taught by Tanaka for the predictable advantage of preventing cracks that occur upon repeated squeezing, as Tanaka teaches in [abstract].
Claims 27 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. in view of Nielson et al. and Nagashima et al, as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Huber et al. (US 20150086160, of record).
Regarding claim 27, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 21 (see above), the modified Brown doesn’t explicitly teach the OCT imaging system of claim 21 further comprising a hollow jacket disposed over the buffer, the hollow jacket being coextensive with the buffer.
Brown and Huber are related as optical devices using waveguides.
Huber teaches a hollow jacket disposed over the buffer, the hollow jacket being coextensive with the buffer (the buffer 5a and the jacket 5b of the fiber, [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified imaging system of Brown to include hollow jacket disposed over the buffer as taught by Huber for the predictable advantage of increasing the mechanical stability, [0042].
Regarding claim 38, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 21, (see above), the modified Brown doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the buffer is coextensive with the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide.
Brown and Huber are related as optical devices using waveguides.
Huber teaches a hollow jacket disposed over the buffer, the hollow jacket being coextensive with the buffer (the buffer 5a and the jacket 5b of the fiber, [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified imaging system of Brown to include hollow jacket disposed over the buffer as taught by Huber for the predictable advantage of increasing the mechanical stability, [0042].
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. in view of Nielson et al., Nagashima et al, and Huber et al. as applied to claim 27, and further in view of Kewitsch (US 20080008430, of record).
Regarding claim 28, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 27 (see above), the OCT imaging system further comprising a non-stretchable wire (adjustment mechanism 210) extending substantially parallel along the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (Fig. 10, path length adjustment mechanism 210, such as a mechanical screw, [0070], Figure shows 210 extending substantially parallel along the arm waveguide), the non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface and an interior surface of the hollow jacket (see Fig. 10; and wherein the non-stretchable wire is restrained on each end of the OCT fiber assembly such that stretching of the first core and the second core is minimized (motor driven adjustment mechanism, such as a mechanical screw that is driven by a knob, [0070]).
The modified Brown doesn’t explicitly teach the non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer and an interior surface of the hollow jacket.
Brown and Kewitsch are related as optical waveguides. Kewitsch teaches non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer and an interior surface of the hollow jacket, (Fig. 2B, non-stretchable wire 14-2, solid wires, positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer 14-1 and an interior surface of the hollow jacket 12, [0021]; elements 14-2 are internal to the cylindrical ductile elements 14-1 and longitudinally adjacent, [0022], see Fig. 9 and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified imaging system of Brown the non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer and an interior surface of the hollow jacket for the predictable advantage of helping to isolate the internal fiber 11 from damaging due to crushing, [0024], and implementing a bend limit [0042].
Claims 29 - 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. in view of Nielson et al. as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Houghton (US 2010/0212718, of record).
Regarding claim 29, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 21.
Brown doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide are twisted.
Brown and Houghton are related as optical devices using waveguides.
Houghton teaches the waveguides are twisted (The Optical Waveguides could be twisted around each other, [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the imaging system of modified Brown to include twisted waveguides, as taught by Houghton, for the predictable advantage of making the structure stronger (One possible benefit to having Optical Waveguides bundled in a corkscrew arrangement is a stronger structure could be assembled using this arrangement when combined with a suitable resin based bonding system, [0053]).
Regarding claim 30, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 29. Houghton further teaches, wherein the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide are twisted in a right-handed lay (see Fig. 9b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the imaging system of modified Brown to include the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide are twisted in a right-handed lay, as taught by Houghton, for the predictable advantage of making the structure stronger (Optical Waveguides bundled in a corkscrew arrangement is a stronger structure, [0053]).
Regarding claim 31, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 29. Houghton further teaches, wherein the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide are twisted in a left-handed lay (Fig. 9b shows waveguide twisted in a left-handed lay, anti-clock, when looking from top). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the imaging system of modified Brown to include the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide are twisted in a left-handed lay, as taught by Houghton, for the predictable advantage of making the structure stronger (Optical Waveguides bundled in a corkscrew arrangement is a stronger structure, [0053]).
Regarding claim 32, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 29.
The modified Brown doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the twists of the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide include between 0.1 and 0.25 twists/feet.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to twist the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide between 0.1 and 0.25 twists/feet, through routine experimentation, the claimed ratio in order to optimize the functionality of the device (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed measure or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a twisted waveguide, the Applicant must show that the chosen dimension is critical. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 33, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 29.
The modified Brown doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide include less than three twists along a length of the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide less than three twists along a length of the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide, through routine experimentation, the claimed ratio in order to optimize the functionality of the device (see MPEP §2144.05). Further, the specification contains no disclosure of either the critical nature of the claimed measure or any unexpected results arising therefrom and it has been held that where patentability is said to be based upon a twisted waveguide, the Applicant must show that the chosen length is critical. See MPEP §2144.05.
Regarding claim 34, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 29. Nielson teaches, wherein the twisting results in substantially equivalent physical stretching, compression, or stretching and compression on the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (Fig. 6 shows arms are equally spaced around a single-core fiber 106-4. All the single-core fibers 106 having the same core (CO) diameter and the same cladding (CL) diameter, [0049]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the imaging system of Brown to include the twisting results in substantially equivalent physical stretching, compression, or stretching and compression on the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide as taught by Nielson for the predictable result of coupling the waveguides together for improving the system reliability by connecting the twisting results in substantially equivalent physical stretching, compression, or stretching and compression on the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide, as Nielson teaches in Fig. 6.
Regarding claim 35, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 29, (see above) wherein the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide are substantially parallel (Fig. 9 shows the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide are substantially parallel).
Claims 37 and 40-43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown et al. in view of Nielson et al. and Nagashima et al, as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Kewitsch (US 20080008430, of record).
Regarding claim 37, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 21 (see above), the OCT imaging system further comprising a non-stretchable wire (adjustment mechanism 210) extending substantially parallel along the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (Fig. 10, path length adjustment mechanism 210, such as a mechanical screw, [0070], Figure shows 210 extending substantially parallel along the arm waveguide), the non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface and an interior surface of the hollow jacket (see Fig. 10; and wherein the non-stretchable wire is restrained on each end of the OCT fiber assembly such that stretching of the first core and the second core is minimized (motor driven adjustment mechanism, such as a mechanical screw that is driven by a knob, [0070]).
The modified Brown doesn’t explicitly teach the non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer and an interior surface of the hollow jacket.
Brown and Kewitsch are related as optical waveguides. Kewitsch teaches non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer and an interior surface of the hollow jacket, (Fig. 2B, non-stretchable wire 14-2, solid wires, positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer 14-1 and an interior surface of the hollow jacket 12, [0021]; elements 14-2 are internal to the cylindrical ductile elements 14-1 and longitudinally adjacent, [0022], see Fig. 9 and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified imaging system of Brown the non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer and an interior surface of the hollow jacket for the predictable advantage of helping to isolate the internal fiber 11 from damaging due to crushing, [0024], and implementing a bend limit [0042].
Regarding claim 40, Brown teaches an Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) imaging system (refer to US 2007/0081166; “optical coherence imaging devices and systems’, [0002]), comprising: an OCT light source operable to emit an OCT light beam (Fig. 1, source 100; Figs. 1, 2 and 9, “Light enters along an optical fiber 110 from the OCT engine 100”, [0055-0056]); a beam splitter (beam splitter 200; [0066]; Fig. 9) operable to split the OCT light beam into a sample beam (Fig. 9, “the light to the sample arm optical path 220”, [0066]), and a reference beam (Fig. 9, reference beam path 221), an OCT fiber assembly having a reference arm waveguide and a sample arm waveguide (Fig. 9 shows OCT fiber assembly having a reference arm waveguide and a sample arm waveguide), the sample beam and the reference beam being respectively transferred to the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (Fig. 9 shows sample beam inside sample arm and the reference beam inside reference arm being respectively transferred to the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide), and a probe (probe 101, [0069], Fig. 9) that includes an optical element (optical fiber 110 and collimating assembly 111, lenses, splitter, Fig. 9) positioned such that the reference arm waveguide provides the reference beam (221, reference arm optical path) and the sample arm waveguide provides the sample beam (220 sample arm optical path) to the same optical element; (Light enters along an optical fiber 110 from the OCT engine. Light exits the fiber and passes through a collimating assembly 111 at the base of the handle 115. The beamsplitter 200 sends some of the light to the sample arm optical path 220 and the rest of the light passes on to the reference arm optical path 221, [0066]; In path 220 one or more scanning mirrors 112 and through a relay lens set 113 light goes to the sample 114, Light is scattered from the sample 114 and passes back through the portable probe 101' to the optical fiber 110 and on to the OCT engine, [0056]; FIG. 9, the probe includes a reference arm, The light enters the probe 101 through an optical fiber 110, passes through a collimating assembly 111 at the base of the handle 115 and is incident on a beamsplitter 200. The beamsplitter 200 sends some of the light to the sample arm optical path 220 and the rest of the light from the beamsplitter 200 passes to the reference arm optical path 221, which consists of one or more focusing lenses 202, dispersion compensation elements 203, attenuation elements 204, and a reflecting mirror 205. The reflecting mirror 205 sends light back down the reference arm optical path 221 to the beamsplitter 200. The reflecting mirror 205 allow adjustment of the reference arm path length, [0066-0067]. Once the lights from the sample and reference arms reach the beamsplitter 200 it is recombined and passes through the collimating assembly 111 and back into the optical fiber 110. From this point it returns to the OCT engine., [0068]. Therefore, and a probe (probes 101, [0069], Fig. 9) that includes an optical element (optical fiber 110 and collimating assembly 111, lenses, Fig. 9) positioned such that the reference arm waveguide provides the reference beam, reference arm provides returned reference beam through path 221, from mirror 205, and the sample arm waveguide provides the sample beam, beam returned from the sample, through path 220, to the same optical element; optical fiber 110 and collimating assembly 111 that connects the OCT engine, [0068-0069], as shown in Fig. 9); wherein the reference arm waveguide includes a first core (light guide of lens sets of reference arm optical path) and the sample arm waveguide includes a second core (light guide with lens set of sample arm optical path), [Fig. 9]);
Brown further teaches an OCT imaging system further comprising a non-stretchable wire (adjustment mechanism 210) extending substantially parallel along the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide (Fig. 10, path length adjustment mechanism 210, such as a mechanical screw, [0070], Figure shows 210 extending substantially parallel along the arm waveguide), the non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface and an interior surface of the hollow jacket (see Fig. 10; and wherein the non-stretchable wire is restrained on each end of the OCT fiber assembly such that stretching of the first core and the second core is minimized (motor driven adjustment mechanism, such as a mechanical screw that is driven by a knob, [0070], Fig. 10 shows the screw being restrained on the end of the fiber assembly by the knob and threads such that stretching of the core is minimized).
Brown doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a common cladding structure disposed over the first core and the second core, the common cladding structure coupling the first core and the second core; wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a buffer disposed over the first arm waveguide and the second arm waveguide, the buffer being concentrically disposed over the common cladding structure; wherein the fiber assembly includes a non-stretchable wire extending substantially parallel along the arms, the non-stretchable wire being restrained on each end of the OCT fiber assembly such that stretching of the first core and the second core is minimized; and wherein the buffer improves a calibration of a generated OCT image by reducing axial movement of the sample arm waveguide and reference arm waveguide relative to one another.
Brown and Nielson are related as optical devices using waveguides.
Nielson teaches wherein the first arm waveguide includes a first core, and the second arm waveguide includes a second core (Fig. 6, wave guide 103, core fibers 106-1-106-5, [0048]); wherein the would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the imaging system of Brown wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a cladding structure disposed over the first core and the second core, the cladding structure joins the first core and the second core; wherein the OCT fiber assembly includes a buffer disposed over the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide, the buffer being concentrically disposed over the cladding structure, wherein the buffer improves a calibration of a generated OCT image by reducing axial movement of the sample arm waveguide and reference arm waveguide relative to one another as taught by Nielson for the predictable advantage of improving the system reliability, fiber optic cladding and buffer systems are crucial for enhancing signal integrity, durability, and performance. Cladding also enables total internal reflection for low-loss, while buffer coatings provide mechanical protection.
Brown and Nagashima are related as optical devices using waveguides.
Nagashima teaches cladding is a common cladding and the common cladding structure coupling the first core and the second core (Fig. 1(a), seven cores 11, a cladding 12, cores are coated with the common cladding 12, and fiber coating 13, [0023], which is equivalent to buffer; instant application in paragraph [0038] clarified buffer as “coating or buffer”; the buffer 13 being concentrically disposed over the common cladding structure 12, [Fig. 1(a)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified imaging system of Brown wherein cladding is a common cladding and the common cladding structure coupling the first core and the second core, as taught by Nagashima for the predictable advantage of improving the performance and reliability of the cores by coupling the waveguides together by creating the cladding CL which aligns and maintains the offset distances within the cores, as well as easier to manufacture by using one common cladding, and also as Nagashima teaches plurality of multi-core optical fibers arranged parallel to one another with a common resin. Such a multi-core optical fiber ribbon is expected to allow a larger amount of information to be transmitted therethrough, [0003]).
The modified Brown teaches reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide, but doesn’t explicitly teach wherein the assembly includes a non-stretchable wire extending substantially parallel along the waveguides, the non-stretchable wire being restrained on each end of the OCT fiber assembly such that stretching of the first core and the second core is minimized;
Brown and Kewitsch are related as optical waveguides.
Kewitsch teaches non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer and an interior surface of the hollow jacket, (Fig. 2B, non-stretchable wire 14-2, solid wires, positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer 14-1 and an interior surface of the hollow jacket 12, [0021]; elements 14-2 are internal to the cylindrical ductile elements 14-1 and longitudinally adjacent, [0022], see Fig. 9 and [0042]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the modified imaging system of Brown the non-stretchable wire being positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer and an interior surface of the hollow jacket for the predictable advantage of helping to isolate the internal fiber 11 from damaging due to crushing, [0024], and implementing a bend limit [0042].
Regarding claim 41, the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 40, (see above). Kewitsch teaches, wherein the non-stretchable wire is enveloped by the common cladding structure (see Fig. 8A, non-stretchable wire 14-2 is enveloped by the common cladding structure 14-1, fiber 11).
Regarding claim 42 (Examiner renumbered the second claim 41 to claim 42, see claim objection above), the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 40, (see above). Kewitsch teaches further comprising: a hollow jacket disposed over and coextensive with the buffer; and wherein the non-stretchable wire is positioned between an exterior surface of the buffer and an interior surface of the hollow jacket (Fig. 8A, non-stretchable wire 14-2, cladding structure 14-1, fiber 11 and jacket 12, [0041]).
Regarding claim 43, (Examiner renumbered the claim 42 to claim 43, see claim objection above), the modified Brown teaches an OCT imaging system of claim 40.
The modified Brown doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the twists of the reference arm waveguide and the sample arm waveguide include between 0.1 and 0.25 twists/feet.
Brown and Houghton are related as optical devices using waveguides.
Houghton teaches the waveguides are twisted (The Optical Waveguides could be twisted around each other, [0053]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the imaging system of modified Brown to include twisted waveguides, as taught by Houghton, for the predictable advantage of making the structure stronger (One possible benefit to having Optical Waveguides bundled in a corkscrew arrangement is a stronger structure could be assembled using this arrangement when combined with a suitable resin based bonding system, [0053]). Although Brown doesn’t explicitly teach, wherein the twists waveguides include between 0.1 and 0.25 twists/feet. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to twist the waveguides between 0.1 and 0.25 twists/feet,.
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).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brennan et al. (US 20110279821); Alphonse et a. (US 20060103850), Guivernau et al (US 20140118748) teaches Optical Coherence Tomography with reference arm, sample arm and the splitter, as claimed in independent claims.
Although the prior art in record teaches the claimed limitations, the prior art doesn’t explicitly teach all features revealed in the specification of the instant application, like the imaging detector is a spectrometer with a detector array in a spectrometer-based Fourier-Domain OCT imaging system; a photodiode detector in a swept-source Fourier-domain OCT imaging system, [0021], scanning optics 208, the cannula assembly 300 can include scanner elements 414 and 416, and a fixed plate 418. The scanner elements 414 and 416 may be gradient index (GRIN) lenses, [0029], which are not in the claim, but would overcome the current rejection if added to the claim.
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 RAHMAN ABDUR whose telephone number is (571)270-0438. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 am to 5:30.
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, Bumsuk Won can be reached at (571) 272-2713. 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.
/R.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/BUMSUK WON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights