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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 & 21-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The 112 rejection of claim 10 has been withdrawn as the examiner finds the applicant’s arguments convincing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 6-8, 10, 15, 16, 17-19, & 22-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulkarni (PGPub 2014/0180075) (Kulkarni).
Regarding Claims 1, 17, & 23, Kulkarni discloses an optical coherence microscopy system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a light source (fig. 1, 105) configured to produce a light beam, wherein the light beam comprises S- polarized light and P-polarized light;
a beamsplitter (106) configured to split the light beam into a reference beam and an object beam (Paragraph 55), wherein the reference beam comprises an S-polarized reference beam component (RS) and a P- polarized reference beam component (RP) and the object beam comprises an S-polarized object beam component (OS) and a P-polarized object beam component (OP) (Paragraph 46). The isolator rotates the polarization of the beam to be at 45° to the orthogonal axis (the P and S polarization planes) and thus will consist of both P and S polarized components which are then split at the beamsplitter into a reference and object beams;
a reference arm including a static phase shifter (109, Paragraph 48), the reference arm configured to receive the reference beam from the beamsplitter, impart a phase shift to at least one of the S-polarized reference beam components or the P-polarized reference beam component via the phase shifter, and return the reference beam to the beamsplitter (paragraph 48). The λ/8 waveplate is applicant’s static phase shifter;
an object arm (103) configured to receive the object beam from the beamsplitter and return the object beam to the beamsplitter;
wherein the beamsplitter is further configured to combine the reference beam returned from the reference arm with the object beam returned from the object arm to output a phase-shifted light beam comprising a plurality of phase-shifted light beam components (Paragraph 56); and
an image sensor (110) configured to simultaneously capture the plurality of phase-shifted light beam components (Paragraph 56). The disclosed image sensor is capable of this thus the limitation is met but it is also performing this function by receiving the interference light.
The limitations of claims 17 & 23 are also met by this disclosure.
Regarding Claim 2, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the phase- shifted light beam components comprise multiple distinct phase shifts between the reference beam returned from the reference arm and the object beam returned from the object arm (Paragraphs 48 & 56). The light passing through the λ/8 waveplates and upon reflection back through them meets this limitation.
Regarding Claim 3, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the multiple distinct phase shifts are stepped by π/2 (Paragraphs 48 & 56). Passing through a λ/8 waveplate results in a π/2 phase shift.
Regarding Claims 5 & 22, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the beamsplitter is a non-polarizing beamsplitter (Paragraph 55).
Regarding Claim 6, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the reference arm comprises:
the phase shifter that shifts a phase of at least one of the S-polarized reference beam component or the P-polarized reference beam component (Paragraph 48);
the reference arm further comprises a reference reflector that reflects the reference beam received from the beamsplitter back onto the beamsplitter (Paragraph 48); and
wherein the reference beam firstly passes through the phase shifter, is reflected by the reference reflector, and secondly passes through the phase shifter before exiting the reference arm (Paragraph 48).
Regarding Claim 7, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the phase shifter comprises a waveplate (Paragraph 48, λ/8 waveplate).
Regarding Claim 8, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the waveplate is a λ /8 waveplate (Paragraph 48).
Regarding Claim 10, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the reference reflector comprises a reference mirror (Paragraph 48).
Regarding Claim 15, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the light source is an unpolarized light source (Paragraph 58). It is disclosed the light source may be a SLD which is an unpolarized light source.
Regarding Claim 16, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the light source comprises a light emitting diode (LED) (Paragraph 58). A SLD light source is a type of LED light source.
Regarding Claim 18, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the phase shifter is a waveplate and the reference arm is configured such that the reference beam firstly passes through the waveplate, is reflected by the reference reflector, and secondly passes through the waveplate before exiting the reference arm (Paragraph 48).
Regarding Claim 19, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the phase shift comprises a first phase shift imparted when the reference beam firstly passes through the waveplate and a second phase shift imparted when the reference beam secondly passes through the waveplate (Paragraph 48).
Regarding Claim 24, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses wherein the distinct phase shifts comprise distinct phase shifts stepped by π/2 between the object and the reference beams in at least one of the S- polarization or P-polarization components (Paragraphs 48 & 56).
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 9, 11-14, & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kulkarni.
Regarding Claim 4, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned. Further, Kulkarni discloses at least 3 three distinct phase shifts, one from the mirror, and two from the two passes through the λ/8 waveplate (Paragraph 48) but fails to explicitly disclose a fourth distinct phase shift;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. This is because the applicant’s distinct fourth phase shift comes from reflection from a beamsplitter prism whereas the art uses a fiber optic beam splitter which may not include a reflection of the light (See Schmoll PGPub 2018/0364025, Paragraph 36);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kulkarni with a fourth distinct phase shift because using bulk optics instead of fiber optics is functionally equivalent and would be done for reasons based on cost or availability of parts.
Regarding Claim 9, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the waveplate is an achromatic waveplate;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kulkarni with wherein the waveplate is an achromatic waveplate because they allow for the use of wideband signals without chromatic error in the phase shift being induced into the measurement.
Regarding Claim 11, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned t fails to explicitly disclose wherein the beamsplitter is configured to impart an additional phase shift to light reflected by the beamsplitter;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. This is because this would be a property of using a beam splitter prism and the beamsplitter imparting an additional phase shift to light reflected by the beam splitter comes an inherent property of reflection of light from a surface and would be part of the function of a beam splitter prism reflecting the light (See Schmoll PGPub 2018/0364025, Paragraph 36);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kulkarni with wherein the beamsplitter is configured to impart an additional phase shift to light reflected by the beamsplitter because using bulk optics instead of fiber optics is functionally equivalent and would be done in for reasons based on cost or availability of parts.
Regarding Claim 12, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned t fails to explicitly disclose wherein the beamsplitter is configured to impart an additional π phase shift to light reflected by the beamsplitter;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. This is because this would be a property of using a beam splitter prism and the beamsplitter imparting an additional phase shift to light reflected by the beam splitter comes an inherent property of reflection of light from a surface and would be part of the function of a beam splitter prism reflecting the light (See Schmoll PGPub 2018/0364025, Paragraph 36);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kulkarni with wherein the beamsplitter is configured to impart an additional π phase shift to light reflected by the beamsplitter because using bulk optics instead of fiber optics is functionally equivalent and would be done in for reasons based on cost or availability of parts.
Regarding Claim 13, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned t fails to explicitly disclose wherein the beamsplitter is configured to: firstly reflect the object beam when splitting the object beam into the object arm, thereby imparting the additional phase shift to the object beam; and firstly transmit the reference beam when splitting the reference beam into the reference arm, thereby not imparting the additional phase shift to the reference beam;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. This is because these steps would be description of using a beam splitter prism and the beamsplitter imparting an additional phase shift to light reflected by the beam splitter comes an inherent property of reflection of light from a surface and would be part of the function of a beam splitter prism reflecting the light (See Schmoll PGPub 2018/0364025, Paragraph 36);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kulkarni with wherein the beamsplitter is configured to: firstly reflect the object beam when splitting the object beam into the object arm, thereby imparting the additional phase shift to the object beam; and firstly transmit the reference beam when splitting the reference beam into the reference arm, thereby not imparting the additional phase shift to the reference beam because using bulk optics instead of fiber optics is functionally equivalent and would be done in for reasons based on cost or availability of parts.
Regarding Claim 14, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned t fails to explicitly disclose wherein the beamsplitter is configured to: split the object beam returned from the object arm into a first object beam part and a second object beam part, wherein the first object beam part is transmitted by the beamsplitter and the second object beam part is reflected by the beamsplitter thereby accruing the additional phase shift; and split the reference beam returned from the reference arm into a first reference beam part and a second reference beam part, wherein the first reference beam part is reflected by the beam splitter thereby accruing the additional phase shift and the second reference beam part is transmitted by the beamsplitter;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. This is because these steps would be description of using a beam splitter prism and the beamsplitter imparting an additional phase shift to light reflected by the beam splitter comes an inherent property of reflection of light from a surface and would be part of the function of a beam splitter prism reflecting the light (See Schmoll PGPub 2018/0364025, Paragraph 36);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kulkarni with wherein the beamsplitter is configured to: split the object beam returned from the object arm into a first object beam part and a second object beam part, wherein the first object beam part is transmitted by the beamsplitter and the second object beam part is reflected by the beamsplitter thereby accruing the additional phase shift; and split the reference beam returned from the reference arm into a first reference beam part and a second reference beam part, wherein the first reference beam part is reflected by the beam splitter thereby accruing the additional phase shift and the second reference beam part is transmitted by the beamsplitter because using bulk optics instead of fiber optics is functionally equivalent and would be done in for reasons based on cost or availability of parts.
Regarding Claim 21, Kulkarni discloses the aforementioned t fails to explicitly disclose wherein the beamsplitter is configured to impart an additional phase shift to the reference beam when the reference beam is reflected by the beamsplitter;
However, the examiner takes official notice this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing. This is because this would be a property of using a beam splitter prism and the beamsplitter imparting an additional phase shift to light reflected by the beam splitter comes an inherent property of reflection of light from a surface and would be part of the function of a beam splitter prism reflecting the light (See Schmoll PGPub 2018/0364025, Paragraph 36);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Kulkarni with wherein the beamsplitter is configured to impart an additional phase shift to the reference beam when the reference beam is reflected by the beamsplitter because using bulk optics instead of fiber optics is functionally equivalent and would be done in for reasons based on cost or availability of parts.
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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 March 16, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877