DETAIL OFFICE ACTIONS
The United States Patent & Trademark Office appreciates the response filed for the current application that is submitted on 03/11/2026. The United States Patent & Trademark Office reviewed the following documents submitted and has made the following comments below.
Amendment
Applicant submitted amendments on 03/11/2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendment and has reviewed the claims accordingly.
Priority
Applicant claims the benefit of foreign application JP 2022-100776 filed on 06/23/2022. Claims 1-20 have been afforded the benefit of this filing date.
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS dated 06/21/2023 and 03/11/2026 has been considered and placed in the application file.
Overview
Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Applicant Arguments:
In regards to the argument on Argument 1, Applicant/s state/s “Komie, for instance, is understood to describe performing processing using polarization OCT images such as DOPU images, as indicated in paras. [0027] - [0028] and [0066] - [0071]. On the other hand, the present disclosure can be regarded as using ordinary OCT images (that is, intensity images) rather than polarization OCT images (see, e.g., para. [0003] of the present disclosure, which uses the term "OCT intensity image").” therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn (See Remarks, page 11, paragraph 3-4).
In regards to the argument on Argument 2, Applicant/s state/s “Galeotti, the secondary reference, also fails to disclose or suggest at least the above identified features of Applicant's independent claims. Therefore, no combination of the applied references, assuming arguendo that the references are reasonably and predictably combinable in the first place, discloses or suggests all of the features of Applicant's independent claims.” therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 103 should be withdrawn (See Remarks, page 11, paragraph 5).
In regards to the argument on Argument 3, Applicant/s state/s “the independent claims are amended to specify various aspects to make clearer that Applicant's claimed invention, when the elements are properly analyzed individually and in combination, is not directed to an abstract idea and, in any event, amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea” therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn (See Remarks, page 12, paragraph 2).
In regards to the argument on Argument 4, Applicant/s state/s “For instance, independent Claim 1 is amended to recite outputting, on a display, the mean image of the portion of the subject's eye; independent Claim 9 is amended to recite control output of; on a display, the mean image with reduced birefringence-derived artifact; and independent Claim l0 is amended to recite controlling output of the mean image on a user interface.” therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn (See Remarks, page 11, paragraph 3).
In regards to the argument on Argument 5, Applicant/s state/s “Such features make clearer that Applicant's claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea and amounts to significantly more than an abstract idea, for instance, because the independent claims are not preclusive and can be practically applied to create and output clearer images (i.e., with reduced (including eliminated) birefringence-derived artifacts). Such image(s) can be used to store and/or show a particular portion of a subject's eye, such as a scleral front image” therefore, the rejection of 35 U.S.C. 101 should be withdrawn (See Remarks, page 11, paragraph 3).
Examiner’s Responses:
In response to Argument 1, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 10 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection caused by the amendments. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claims 1, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Komie et al (U.S Patent Pub. No 2017/0231484 A1, hereafter referred to as Komie) in view of Galeotti et al (WO 2020/252271 A1, hereafter referred to as Galeotti) in further view of Hirose et al (US Patent Pub US 2020/0093364 A1, hereafter referred to as Hirose).
The Examiner finds that Komie teaches on the amended claim language “processing an optical coherence tomography (OCT) image” in amended claim 1, 9 and 10 with the amendment changing the scope of the “OCT intensity images”.
Specifically, Komie teaches a method, apparatus and computer readable medium to process an optical coherence tomography (OCT) image in ¶0004, ¶0005, and ¶0125. Applicant argues that “Komie, for instance, is understood to describe performing processing using polarization OCT images such as DOPU images, as indicated in paras. [0027] - [0028] and [0066] - [0071]. On the other hand, the present disclosure can be regarded as using ordinary OCT images (that is, intensity images) rather than polarization OCT images (see, e.g., para. [0003] of the present disclosure, which uses the term "OCT intensity image")”. Komie does teach a method, apparatus and computer readable medium to process an optical coherence tomography (OCT) image. Komie does not disclose the specific limitation of OCT intensity images, as recited in Claim 1, 9 or 10. However, the Examiner interprets that Komie teaches the main concept of processing the OCT image by averaging the images to extract a specific region to generate a motion contrast image of the eye, the additional details of the function and characteristics of the main concepts as stated above by the applicant in the amendments is taught by Galeotti and Hirose in the details of the rejection below. The Examiner will maintain prior art Komie and details of the rejection are below.
In response to Argument 2, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to independent claims 1, 9 and 10 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection caused by the amendments. Upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made for Claims 1, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in view of Komie et al (U.S Patent Pub. No 2017/0231484 A1, hereafter referred to as Komie) in view of Galeotti et al (WO 2020/252271 A1, hereafter referred to as Galeotti) in further view of Hirose et al (US Patent Pub US 2020/0093364 A1, hereafter referred to as Hirose).
The Examiner finds that Galeotti teaches on the amended claim language “reducing noise in the artifacts” in amended claim 1, 9 and 10 with the amendment changing the scope of the “OCT intensity images” and “without implementation of a polarization separation detection”.
Specifically, Galeotti teaches reducing noise and artifacts in OCT images in ¶0002, ¶0006, and ¶0041. Applicant argues that “Galeotti, the secondary reference, also fails to disclose or suggest at least the above identified features of Applicant's independent claims. Therefore, no combination of the applied references, assuming arguendo that the references are reasonably and predictably combinable in the first place, discloses or suggests all of the features of Applicant's independent claims”. Galeotti does teach teaches reducing noise and artifacts in OCT images. Galeotti does not disclose the specific limitation of OCT intensity images or without implementation of a polarization separation detection, as recited in Claim 1, 9 or 10. However, the Examiner interprets that Komie teaches the main concept of processing the OCT image by averaging the images to extract a specific region to generate a motion contrast image of the eye, and Galeotti teaches the secondary concept of removing noise and artifacts from the images, the additional details of the function and characteristics of the main concepts as stated above by the applicant in the amendments is taught by Hirose in the details of the rejection below. The Examiner will maintain prior art Galeotti and details of the rejection are below.
In response to Argument 3, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to amended claims 1, 9 and 10 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore the 101 rejection is withdrawn.
In response to Argument 4, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to amended claims 1, 9 and 10 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore the 101 rejection is withdrawn.
In response to Argument 5, Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 03/11/2026, with respect to amended claims 1, 9 and 10 have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore the 101 rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification.
Under MPEP 2143.03, "All words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385, 165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). As a general matter, the grammar and ordinary meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under Page 3 Application/Control Number: 18/617,801 Art Unit: 2674 the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See, e.g., Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298, 92 USPQ2d 1163, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 5.
Claim 11 recite “in one of or both” then listing “a reference arm and a sample arm.” Since “or” is disjunctive, any one of the elements found in the prior art is sufficient to reject the claim. While citations have been provided for completeness and rapid prosecution, only one element is required. Because, on balance, it appears the disjunctive interpretation enjoys the most specification support and for that reason the disjunctive interpretation (one of A, B OR C) is being adopted for the purposes of this Office Action. Applicant’s comments and/or amendments relating to this issue are invited to clarify the claim language and the prosecution history.
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 15 and 20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. The Examiner strongly suggested that appropriate corrections be made to clarify the claim scope.
With respect to Claim 15, the claim recites the following, each of which renders the claim indefinite:
“ the motion ” on line 2 (unclear antecedent basis there is no mention of motion in parent claim 1).
With respect to Claim 20, the claim recites the following, each of which renders the claim indefinite:
“ user interface” on line 4 (unclear antecedent basis there is no mention a user interface in parent claim 10).
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Komie et al (U.S Patent Pub. No 2017/0231484 A1, hereafter referred to as Komie) in view of Galeotti et al (WO 2020/252271 A1, hereafter referred to as Galeotti) in further view of Hirose et al (US Patent Pub US 2020/0093364 A1, hereafter referred to as Hirose).
Regarding Claim 1, Komie teaches a method of processing an optical coherence tomography (OCT) image (Komie ¶0004 - ¶005 discloses a method of processing OCT images), the method comprising:
acquiring using a processor (Komie ¶0125 discloses the method being implemented by computers with a processors) a plurality by applying a plurality of OCT scans (Komie ¶0059 and ¶0061 discloses a plurality of OCT images) corresponding to a plurality of different polarization conditions to a sample (Komie ¶0026 - ¶0027 discloses an image processing of OCT images with polarization parameters); and
generating using a processor (Komie ¶0125 discloses the method being implemented by computers with a processors) a mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) of a portion of a subject's eye (Komie ¶0063, ¶0083, discloses the fundus of the eye to be inspected which the examiner is interpreting to be a portion of the subjects eye) with a reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values to assist in segmentation of the image)
by applying averaging to the plurality (Komie ¶0061 discloses averaging a plurality of images) corresponding to the plurality of different polarization conditions (Komie Fig 4 and ¶0010 and ¶0027 disclose the plurality of different polarization characteristics that effect the images)
to average out (Komie in ¶0052 and ¶0057 ¶0120 discloses an method of processing OCT images including OCT intensity images including performing averaging of the images) birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values to assist in segmentation of the image)
corresponding to the plurality of different polarization conditions (Komie Fig 4 and ¶0010 and ¶0027 disclose the plurality of different polarization characteristics that effect the images); and
Outputting on a display (Komie ¶0092 and Fig5 S355 discloses displaying the image), the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) of the portion of the subject's eye (Komie ¶0063, ¶0083, discloses the fundus of the eye to be inspected which the examiner is interpreting to be a portion of the subjects eye) .
Komie does not explicitly disclose reduced artifact, and artifact.
Galeotti is in the same field of are of image analysis of OCT images. Further, Galeotti teaches reduced artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.") artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Komie by incorporating the preprocessing of the input data into pairs for the machine learning model, training data, and outputting artifact reduced images as taught by Galeotti, to make an invention that can output clearer OCT images even with effects of polarization and other artifacts automatically by utilizing machine learning and preprocessing techniques; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since an object of the present invention is for noise and artifacts to be removed from OCT images for increased accuracy in the segmentation of the ocular layers (Galeotti ¶0039).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Komie and Galeotti in combination do not explicitly disclose OCT intensity images, without implementation of a polarization separation detection function, OCT intensity images, in the plurality of OCT intensity images.
Hirose is in the same field of are of image analysis of OCT images. Further, Hirose teaches OCT intensity images (Hirose ¶0067, ¶0189 discloses obtaining the images using the interference intensity between the measurements and reference lights), without implementation of a polarization separation detection function (Hirose Fig 2 and ¶0064, ¶0067 discloses no polarization beam splitter, and no dual channel diversity receiver in use with a single photodiode detector), OCT intensity images (Hirose ¶0067, ¶0189 discloses obtaining the images using the interference intensity between the measurements and reference lights),
in the plurality of OCT intensity images (Hirose ¶0067, ¶0189 discloses obtaining the images using the interference intensity between the measurements and reference lights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Komie in view of Galeotti by using intensity OCT images that are processed without the use of a polarization separation detection function as taught by Hirose, to make an invention that can output clearer OCT images even with effects of polarization and other artifacts in a more cost effective and time efficient way as non-polarization images are much less expensive and quicker to obtain; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need for achieve both shortening of time required for montage imaging and improvement of image quality. (Hirose ¶0008).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the averaging (Komie ¶0061 discloses averaging a plurality of images) includes summation averaging (Komie ¶0060 discloses summing correlation coefficients to generate the average image), and
the generating the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) includes generating an arithmetic mean image (Komie ¶0057-¶00610 discloses using calculations to produce an average of the plurality of datasets from image characteristic's) with both the reduced birefringence-derived artifact (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image) artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.") and reduced speckle noise (Galeotti ¶0040 discloses removing the speckle noise in OCT images) by applying the averaging including the summation averaging (Komie ¶0060 discloses summing correlation coefficients to generate the average image) to the plurality of images (Komie ¶0061 discloses averaging a plurality of images) corresponding to the plurality of different polarization conditions (Komie Fig 4 and ¶0010 and ¶0027 disclose the plurality of different polarization characteristics that effect the images). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 3, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 2, further comprising generating a machine learning model (Galeotti Fig 2 and ¶0053-¶0057 disclose a machine learning model) and by performing machine learning using training data (Galeotti ¶0053 and ¶0064 disclose using training data to preform machine learning) that includes the arithmetic mean image (Komie ¶0057-¶00610 discloses using calculations to produce an average of the plurality of datasets from image characteristic's). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 4, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the training data includes a set of pairs of a plurality of images (Galeotti ¶0045- ¶0047 discloses generating pairs with the input images for the machine learning model) corresponding to a plurality of different polarization conditions (Komie Fig 4 and ¶0010 and ¶0027 disclose the plurality of different polarization characteristics that effect the images) and an arithmetic mean image based on this plurality of images (Komie ¶0057-¶00610 discloses using calculations to produce an average of the plurality of datasets from image characteristic's). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 5, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the machine learning model (Galeotti Fig 2 and ¶0053-¶0057 disclose a machine learning model) generated by the machine learning using the training data (Galeotti ¶0053 and ¶0064 disclose using training data to preform machine learning and create a machine learning model) receives at least one OCT (Komie ¶0059 and ¶0061 discloses a plurality of OCT images) image and outputs an image (Galeotti ¶0065 "In some non-limiting examples, a computing device internal to the OCT scanner may be used such that the OCT scanner outputs a modified OCT image having noise and/or artifacts removed.") with both a reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image) artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.") and reduced speckle noise (Galeotti ¶0040 discloses removing the speckle noise in OCT images). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 6, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of OCT scans (Komie ¶0059 and ¶0061 discloses a plurality of OCT images) corresponding to the plurality of different polarization conditions (Komie Fig 4 and ¶0010 and ¶0027 disclose the plurality of different polarization characteristics that effect the images) is included in a series of OCT scans to redundantly collect data from the sample (Komie ¶0052 and ¶0056 and discloses executing a scan a plurality of times to obtain additional datasets). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 7, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the series of OCT scans performs redundant data collection from the sample (Komie ¶0052 and ¶0056 and discloses executing a scan a plurality of times to obtain additional datasets) by using a first scan pattern (Komie ¶0051 and ¶0048 discloses a specific scan pattern) that includes a plurality of partial patterns intersecting each other (Komie ¶0048 -¶0049 discloses using different directions (directions is being interpreted to be equivalent to patterns) of scans to cross sections the eye for a complete image). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 8, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the series of OCT scans performs redundant data collection from the sample (Komie ¶0052 and ¶0056 and discloses executing a scan a plurality of times to obtain additional datasets) by applying an OCT scan based on a second scan pattern (Komie ¶0048 discloses used a second scan pattern "B-scan direction") a plurality of times targeting a same region of the sample (Komie ¶0048 -¶0049 discloses using different directions (directions is being interpreted to be equivalent to patterns) of scans to cross sections the eye (interpreting to be equivalent to a region) for a complete image). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 9, Komie teaches an apparatus of processing an optical coherence tomography (OCT) image (Komie ¶0026-¶0027 discloses an image processing apparatus for OCT images), the apparatus comprising:
an image acquiring unit including an OCT scanner (Komie Fig 1 814 and ¶0035-¶0035 discloses an imaging unit as a galvano scanner, a type of OCT imaging scanner) and configured to acquire a plurality of images generated by applying a plurality of OCT scans (Komie ¶0059 and ¶0061 discloses a plurality of OCT images) corresponding to a plurality of different polarization conditions to a sample (Komie ¶0026 - ¶0027 discloses an image processing of OCT images with polarization parameters); and
a processor (Komie ¶0125 discloses a processor) configured to generate a mean image(Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) with a reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image)
by applying averaging to the plurality of images (Komie ¶0061 discloses averaging a plurality of images) corresponding to the plurality of different polarization conditions (Komie Fig 4 and ¶0010 and ¶0027 disclose the plurality of different polarization characteristics that effect the images) and
control output of (Komie ¶0045 discloses a display control), on a display (Komie ¶0092 and Fig5 S355 discloses displaying the image), the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image)with reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image).
Komie does not explicitly disclose reduced artifact, and artifact.
Galeotti is in the same field of are of image analysis of OCT images. Further, Galeotti teaches reduced artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.") and artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Komie by incorporating the preprocessing of the input data into pairs for the machine learning model, training data, and outputting artifact reduced images as taught by Galeotti, to make an invention that can output clearer OCT images even with effects of polarization and other artifacts automatically by utilizing machine learning and preprocessing techniques; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need for noise and artifacts to be removed from OCT images for increased accuracy in the segmentation of the ocular layers (Galeotti ¶0039).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Komie and Galeotti in combination do not explicitly disclose OCT intensity images, OCT intensity images, without implementation of a polarization separation detection function, to the plurality of OCT intensity images.
Hirose is in the same field of are of image analysis of OCT images. Further, Hirose teaches OCT intensity images (Hirose ¶0067, ¶0189 discloses obtaining the images using the interference intensity between the measurements and reference lights), OCT intensity images (Hirose ¶0067, ¶0189 discloses obtaining the images using the interference intensity between the measurements and reference lights), without implementation of a polarization separation detection function (Hirose Fig 2 and ¶0064, ¶0067 discloses no polarization beam splitter, and no dual channel diversity receiver in use with a single photodiode detector),
To the plurality of OCT intensity images (Hirose ¶0067, ¶0189 discloses obtaining the images using the interference intensity between the measurements and reference lights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Komie in view of Galeotti by using intensity OCT images that are processed without the use of a polarization separation detection function as taught by Hirose, to make an invention that can output clearer OCT images even with effects of polarization and other artifacts in a more cost effective and time efficient way as non-polarization images are much less expensive and quicker to obtain; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need for achieve both shortening of time required for montage imaging and improvement of image quality. (Hirose ¶0008).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 10, Komie teaches a computer-readable non-transitory recording medium (Komie ¶0125 and disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium) in which a program for processing an image (Komie ¶0004 - ¶005 discloses a method of processing OCT images) is recorded (Komie ¶0125 and discloses a program and recording on a storage medium), wherein the program causes a computer to perform (Komie ¶0125 and discloses a computer preforming a method):
acquiring a plurality of images generated by applying a plurality of OCT scans (Komie ¶0059 and ¶0061 discloses a plurality of OCT images) corresponding to a plurality of different polarization conditions to a sample (Komie ¶0026 - ¶0027 discloses an image processing of OCT images with polarization parameters); and
generating a mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) with a reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image)
by applying averaging to the plurality of images corresponding to the plurality of different polarization conditions (Komie Fig 4 and ¶0010 and ¶0027 disclose the plurality of different polarization characteristics that effect the images); and
control output of (Komie ¶0045 discloses a display control), on a display (Komie ¶0092 and Fig5 S355 discloses displaying the image), the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image)with reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image).
Komie does not explicitly disclose reduced artifact and artifact.
Galeotti is in the same field of are of image analysis of OCT images. Further, Galeotti teaches reduced artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts."), artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.").
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Komie by incorporating the preprocessing of the input data into pairs for the machine learning model, training data, and outputting artifact reduced images as taught by Galeotti, to make an invention that can output clearer OCT images even with effects of polarization and other artifacts automatically by utilizing machine learning and preprocessing techniques; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need for noise and artifacts to be removed from OCT images for increased accuracy in the segmentation of the ocular layers (Galeotti ¶0039).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Komie and Galeotti in combination do not explicitly disclose OCT intensity image, OCT intensity images, without implementation of a polarization separation detection function, to the plurality of OCT intensity images.
Hirose is in the same field of are of image analysis of OCT images. Further, Hirose teaches OCT intensity image (Hirose ¶0067, ¶0189 discloses obtaining the images using the interference intensity between the measurements and reference lights), OCT intensity images (Hirose ¶0067, ¶0189 discloses obtaining the images using the interference intensity between the measurements and reference lights), without implementation of a polarization separation detection function (Hirose Fig 2 and ¶0064, ¶0067 discloses no polarization beam splitter, and no dual channel diversity receiver in use with a single photodiode detector),
To the plurality of OCT intensity images (Hirose ¶0067, ¶0189 discloses obtaining the images using the interference intensity between the measurements and reference lights).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Komie in view of Galeotti by using intensity OCT images that are processed without the use of a polarization separation detection function as taught by Hirose, to make an invention that can output clearer OCT images even with effects of polarization and other artifacts in a more cost effective and time efficient way as non-polarization images are much less expensive and quicker to obtain; thus, one of ordinary skilled in the art would be motivated to combine the references since there is a need for achieve both shortening of time required for montage imaging and improvement of image quality. (Hirose ¶0008).
Thus, the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 11, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of OCT scans (Komie ¶0004 - ¶0005 and ¶0120 discloses an method of processing OCT images including OCT intensity images) are performed by controlling an OCT scanner (Hirose ¶0107 discloses scan controlling circuitry) including an interference optical system (Hirose ¶0057 discloses split into two light beams by the split indicator) and by controlling a polarization controller (Hirose Fig 3, 118, ¶0065, ¶0067, discloses a polarization controller) provided in one of or both a reference arm and a sample arm (Hirose ¶0188 discloses the reference arm and the measurement arm including the imaging apparatus which includes the polarization controller) of the interference optical system (Hirose ¶0057 discloses split into two light beams by the split indicator). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 12, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising performing scleral blood vessel analysis of data
regarding the subject's eye (Hirose ¶0119- ¶0121 disclose using the imaging apparatus to construct an image of the retinal and choroidal blood vessel in the eye ) using the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image)with reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image) artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.") and based on multi-OCT scanning (Hirose ¶0141 discloses using multiline and motocross scanning parameters) including polarization-modulated OCT scanning (Hirose Fig 3, 118, ¶0065, ¶0067, discloses a polarization controller that controls the scanning of the eye). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 13, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising detecting a choroid-sclera interface (CSI) (Komie ¶0063, ¶0023 discloses determining the layers of the eye and separating them including the choroid) using the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image and determining the thickness of each layer which is the goal behind finding the junction) with reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image) artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.") and based on multi-OCT scanning (Hirose ¶0141 discloses using multiline and motocross scanning parameters) including polarization-modulated OCT scanning (Hirose Fig 3, 118, ¶0065, ¶0067, discloses a polarization controller that controls the scanning of the eye). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 14, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising storing, in computer-readable storage media (Hirose ¶0249, ¶0028 discloses a computer readable storage medium that is capable of storage)
picture archiving and communication system (PACS) (Hirose ¶0076, ¶0145 discloses a communication system that can store and retrieve shape information from a server and read and write data to be stored as needed) , the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) with reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image) artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts."), wherein said outputting, on the display, (Komie ¶0092 and Fig5 S355 discloses displaying the image), the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) of the portion of the subject's eye (Komie ¶0063, ¶0083, discloses the fundus of the eye to be inspected which the examiner is interpreting to be a portion of the subjects eye) includes retrieval (Hirose ¶0076, ¶0145 discloses a communication system that can store and retrieve shape information from a server) of the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) of the portion of the subject's eye (Komie ¶0063, ¶0083, discloses the fundus of the eye to be inspected which the examiner is interpreting to be a portion of the subjects eye) from the picture archiving and communication system (PACS) (Hirose ¶0076, ¶0145 discloses a communication system that can store and retrieve shape information from a server and read and write data to be stored as needed). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 15, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) of the motion of the subject's eye (Komie ¶0063, ¶0083, discloses the fundus of the eye to be inspected which the examiner is interpreting to be a portion of the subjects eye) includes a front image of the sclera of the subject's eye (Hirose ¶0117, ¶0122, ¶0125 discloses constructing a front image of the patients eye using the image constructing circuity). See Claim 1 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 16, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the apparatus according to Claim 9, wherein the plurality of OCT scans (Komie ¶0004 - ¶0005 and ¶0120 discloses an method of processing OCT images including OCT intensity images) are performed by controlling an OCT scanner (Hirose ¶0107 discloses scan controlling circuitry) including an interference optical system (Hirose ¶0057 discloses split into two light beams by the split indicator) and by controlling a polarization controller (Hirose Fig 3, 118, ¶0065, ¶0067, discloses a polarization controller) provided in one of or both a reference arm and a sample arm (Hirose ¶0188 discloses the reference arm and the measurement arm including the imaging apparatus which includes the polarization controller) of the interference optical system (Hirose ¶0057 discloses split into two light beams by the split indicator), and wherein the generating the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) includes generating an arithmetic mean image (Komie ¶0057-¶00610 discloses using calculations to produce an average of the plurality of datasets from image characteristic's) with both the reduced birefringence-derived artifact (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image) artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.") and reduced speckle noise (Galeotti ¶0040 discloses removing the speckle noise in OCT images) by applying the averaging including the summation averaging (Komie ¶0060 discloses summing correlation coefficients to generate the average image) to the plurality of images (Komie ¶0061 discloses averaging a plurality of images) corresponding to the plurality of different polarization conditions (Komie Fig 4 and ¶0010 and ¶0027 disclose the plurality of different polarization characteristics that effect the images). See Claim 9 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 17, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, further comprising a computer-readable storage media (Komie ¶0125 and disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium), wherein the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) with a reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image) artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.") is displayed on the display (Komie ¶0092 and Fig5 S355 discloses displaying the image) based on retrieval of the mean image from the computer-readable storage media (Hirose ¶0076, ¶0145 discloses a communication system that can store and retrieve shape information from a server or computer). See Claim 9 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 18, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) includes a front image of the sclera of the subject's eye (Hirose ¶0117, ¶0122, ¶0125 discloses constructing a front image of the patients eye using the image constructing circuity). See Claim 9 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 19, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium (Komie ¶0125 and disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium) according to claim 10, wherein the program causes the computer to perform (Komie ¶0125 discloses computer of a system or apparatus that reads out and executes computer executable instructions ( e.g., one or more programs) scleral blood vessel analysis of data regarding a subject's eye (Hirose ¶0119- ¶0121 disclose using the imaging apparatus to construct an image of the retinal and choroidal blood vessel in the eye ) using the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image)with reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image) artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts.") and based on multi-OCT scanning (Hirose ¶0141 discloses using multiline and motocross scanning parameters) including polarization-modulated OCT scanning (Hirose Fig 3, 118, ¶0065, ¶0067, discloses a polarization controller that controls the scanning of the eye). See Claim 10 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Regarding Claim 20, Komie in view of Galeotti in view of Hirose teaches the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium (Komie ¶0125 and disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium) according to claim 10, wherein the program causes the computer to store, in a computer-readable storage media, the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) with reduced birefringence-derived (Komie ¶0027, ¶0066 and ¶0108 discloses using birefringence derived values top assist in segmentation of the image) artifact (Galeotti ¶0041 "nonlimiting implementations of the systems and methods described herein produced improved OCT images with less noise and artifacts."), wherein said controlling output (Komie ¶0045 discloses a display control), on a display of the mean image (Komie ¶0061 discloses generating an averaged image) on the user interface includes retrieval of the mean image from the computer-readable storage media (Hirose ¶0076, ¶0145 discloses a communication system that can store and retrieve shape information from a server or computer). See Claim 10 (its parent claim) for rationale.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RACHEL LYNN ROBERTS whose telephone number is (571)272-6413. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 7:30am- 5:00pm.
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, Oneal Mistry can be reached on (313) 446-4912. 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.
/RACHEL L ROBERTS/Examiner, Art Unit 2674
/Ross Varndell/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674