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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1, claims 1-7, 19, 20, and 28 in the reply filed on 10/07/2025 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 7/19/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “the image data being cropped to display, on an electronic display, a desired depth range within the depth imaging window, wherein the desired depth range is changed dynamically during a data acquisition scan” which is unclear how such function is performed (MPEP 2173.05(g) - Notwithstanding the permissible instances, the use of functional language in a claim may fail "to provide a clear-cut indication of the scope of the subject matter embraced by the claim" and thus be indefinite. In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 213 (CCPA 1971). For example, when claims merely recite a description of a problem to be solved or a function or result achieved by the invention, the boundaries of the claim scope may be unclear. Halliburton Energy Servs., Inc. v. M-I LLC, 514 F.3d 1244, 1255, 85 USPQ2d 1654, 1663 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).
Specially, Applicant’s specification details that image data is collected (Par 61), yet there are no details how such image data is transformed or altered. The specification does not disclose a technical feature of the system for cropping and changing dynamically the region of interest or concentration. It is therefore not clear whether these features refer to a step being performed by the user and therefore refer to a method of using the system. The structural features are therefore not clear.
Claims 3-4 are rejected as dependent upon claim 2.
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 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (20180031363).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson discloses (see at least Fig 12, [0109]-[0124]) a medical optical tomography system (Fig 12, [0109], integrated OCT system 600) for imaging ([0124]) a sample (10) comprising: a hermetically sealed micro package housing (560): i) a base (550) supporting a light source (610) and a beam divider (620), wherein the light source (610) generates a beam of light (Fig 12, [0118]), the beam divider (620) directs a first portion of the light into a reference arm and a second portion of the light into a sample arm (Fig 12, [0122], OCT signal that is reflected by the interference/reference splitter 620 is directed to a reference arm 660); ii) a transmissive element (630) providing an interface between an inside of the micro package and an outside of the micro package (Fig 12, [0121], transmissive window 630 that is provided in the side of the package 560), the transmissive element (630) being along the sample arm and at least partially transparent to the second portion of the light (Fig 12, [0123]); a detector (628) configured for receiving light returning from the sample arm and the reference arm, wherein the detector (628) is further configured for generating signals in response to the receiving the light ([0123], interference signal that is detected by interference signal detector 628); and a processor configured for converting the signals into image data ([0124]).
Regarding claim 28, Johnson discloses wherein the optical tomography system is one of an optical coherence tomography (OCT) system (Fig 12, [0109], integrated OCT system 600), OCT angiography system, and Optical Coherence Domain Reflectometry (OCDR) system.
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.
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) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johnson (20180031363) in view of Buckland (20110096291).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach wherein the optical tomography system generates an imaging depth large enough so that the sample is always within the optical tomography system depth imaging window; the reference arm is fully enclosed within the micro package and the reference arm has an optical path length mismatch with the optical path length of the sampling arm; and the optical tomography system further comprises an optical modulator supported by the base, and the optical modulator is configured to shift the optical frequency of one of the first portion of the light or the second portion of the light to define a modulated OCT signal with a spectral content corresponding to that obtained if the optical path length of the reference arm more closely matched the imaging depth. However, in a similar endeavor, Buckland teaches wherein the optical tomography system (Fig 14, [0156], FDOCT system) generates an imaging depth large enough so that the sample is always within the optical tomography system depth imaging window (Fig 14, [0158], a depth doubled imaging window 1470); the reference arm (sample arm 1440) is fully enclosed within the micro package (Fig 14) and the reference arm (1440) has an optical path length mismatch with the optical path length of the sampling arm (Fig 14 shows the path to 1440 has an incongruity with the path to 1410); and the optical tomography system (Fig 14, [0156], FDOCT system) further comprises an optical modulator (1431) supported by the base ([0156], 1420 is also coupled to a frequency sampled detection module 1431), and the optical modulator (1431) is configured to shift the optical frequency of one of the first portion of the light or the second portion of the light to define a modulated OCT signal with a spectral content corresponding to that obtained if the optical path length of the reference arm more closely matched the imaging depth (Fig 14, [0156], 1420 is also coupled to a frequency sampled detection module 1431 over a detection path 1406 that may be provided by an optical fiber). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the OCT system of Johnson with the components of Buckland for the purpose of optimizing modeling in three dimensions of the entire optical structure of the eye (Buckland, [0018]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 7, 19, and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: with respect to the allowable subject matter, none of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of the claimed combination of limitations to warrant a rejection under 35 USC 102 or 103.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 6, the prior art of Johnson taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical tomography system comprising: “wherein: the optical tomography system generates an imaging depth large enough so that the sample is always within the depth imaging window; the reference arm is fully enclosed within the micro package and the reference arm has an optical path length mismatch with the optical path length of the sampling arm; and the optical tomography system further comprises a frequency mixer supported by the base, and the frequency mixer is configured to frequency-mix the signals from the detector with a frequency corresponding to an edge of the depth imaging window to create a downmixed OCT signal with a spectral content corresponding to that obtained if the optical path length of the reference arm more closely matched the imaging depth”. Claim 7 is allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 6.
Specifically, with respect to dependent claim 19, the prior art of Johnson taken either singly or in combination with any other prior art fails to suggest such an optical tomography system comprising: “wherein: the beam divider, the reference arm, and the sample arm are part of a first interferometer; and the base further supports a second interferometer including a second beam splitter, first mirror and second mirror, a fraction of the light from the light source being directed to the second interferometer to generate a clock to linearize a scan sweep of the OCT system”. Claim 20 is allowable due to pendency on dependent claim 19.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Flanders (20140125987), Modell (7720526), Tumlinson (20080228033), Alphonse (20070055117), and Everett (7126693) are examples of the integration of an optical interferometer and its detector systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharrief I Broome whose telephone number is (571)272-3454. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
Sharrief I. Broome
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2872
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872