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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
As required by M.P.E.P. 609, the applicant’s submissions of the Information Disclosure Statement dated 7/07/2023 is acknowledged by the examiner and the cited references have been considered in the examination of the claims now pending.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it uses legalese - i.e. it is an almost verbatim copy of claim 1. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, "The disclosure concerns," "The disclosure defined by this invention," "The disclosure describes," etc.
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) 1, 4, 5, 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckland (20130265545) in view of Markle (5585972).
Regarding claim 1, Buckland discloses a microscope ([0016], microscope), comprising: an objective lens ([0124], Fig 8 includes in the figure that reference number “4” is the objective lens); a first scanning mirror (Fig 8, [0128], first scanning galvo mirror (X)) configured to operate along a first axis to reflect the laser beam ([0101], laser) from the beam source to scan a specimen ([0024], sample may be an eye) via the objective lens (Fig 8, [0124]); a second scanning mirror (Fig 8, [0128], second, orthogonal scanning galvo mirror (Y)) configured to operate along a second axis, perpendicular to the first axis (Fig 8, [0124], [0128]), to reflect the laser beam from the beam source to scan a specimen via the objective lens (Fig 8, [0128], light is output through objective 4 for surgical imaging, scanning light onto a specimen); a first pair of cylindrical lenses (RBE includes first cylindrical lens pair k & l), positioned between the objective lens and the first scanning mirror (Fig 8), at points along a straight line (Fig 8, Fig 11, [0135]), and configured to receive the reflected laser beam from the first scanning mirror and provide the laser beam to the objective lens (Fig 8, Fig 11) ; and a second pair of cylindrical lenses (RBE includes second cylindrical pair comprising n & e), positioned between the objective lens and the second scanning mirror (Fig 8, Fig 11), at points along the same straight line (Fig 11), having a second focal point aligned with the second scanning mirror (Fig 8, [0128], images it to the second (Y) galvo mirror), and configured to receive the reflected laser beam from the second scanning mirror and provide the laser beam to the objective lens (Fig 8, [0128], images this system pupil with the required magnification to the back focal plane of the surgical microscope objective lens) but does not teach a beam source configured to produce a laser beam; having a first focal point aligned with the first scanning mirror; having a second focal point aligned with the second scanning mirror.
The embodiment within Fig 8 of Buckland does not teach a beam source configured to produce a laser beam. However, within the embodiment of Fig 7A-7C, Buckland further teaches a beam source configured to produce a laser beam (Fig 7A, [0119], beam forming unit includes the IBZ 250, 450). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify the beam induction component of the embodiment within Fig 8 of Buckland to include the technical feature of a laser beam for the purpose of improving light utilization efficiency within an OCT system (Buckland, [0119]).
Furthermore, the combination of the two embodiments within Buckland do not disclose having a first focal point aligned with the first scanning mirror; having a second focal point aligned with the second scanning mirror. However, Markle teaches having a first focal point aligned with the first scanning mirror (Col 2, lines 43-55); having a second focal point aligned with the second scanning mirror (Col 2, lines 56-67). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microscope of Buckland to include the scanning system as taught by Markle for the purpose of producing continuous light and image and imagery across a field of desired view (Markle, Col 1, line 42-Col 2, line 41).
Regarding claim 4, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Buckland further teaches wherein the first pair of cylindrical lenses includes a first cylindrical lens and a second cylindrical lens (Fig 8, Fig 11, RBE (3) includes first cylindrical lens pair comprising lenses k & l and second cylindrical lens pair n & o), separate from one another (Fig 8, Fig 11), and wherein both the first cylindrical lens and second cylindrical lens are positioned along the straight line (Fig 8, Fig 11, [0135]).
Regarding claim 5, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 4 and Buckland further teaches wherein the first cylindrical lens is positioned between the objective lens and the second cylindrical lens along the straight line (Fig 8, Fig 11, RBE (3) first lens I of RBE is in between second lens k and objective lens (4)).
Regarding claim 8, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Buckland further teaches wherein the second pair of cylindrical lenses includes a third cylindrical lens and a fourth cylindrical lens, separate from one another, and wherein both the third cylindrical lens and fourth cylindrical lens are positioned along the straight line (Fig 8, Fig 11, third and fourth lenses o and n of RBE are positioned on straight line of RBE).
Regarding claim 9, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 8 and Buckland further teaches wherein the third cylindrical lens is positioned between the objective lens and the fourth cylindrical lens along the straight line (Fig 8, Fig 9, RBE (3) is between scanning mirror 2 and objective lens 4, within RBE (3) third lens o is between fourth lens n and objective 4).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckland (20130265545) in view of Markle (5585972) and in further view of Okamoto (7850377).
Regarding claim 2, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Buckland further teaches wherein the first pair of cylindrical lenses includes a first cylindrical lens and a second cylindrical lens, wherein the second pair of cylindrical lenses includes a third cylindrical lens and a fourth cylindrical lens (Fig 8, Fig 11, RBE (3) includes first cylindrical lens pair comprising lenses k & l and second cylindrical lens pair n & o) but does not teach wherein the first cylindrical lens and the third cylindrical lens are fused together. However, Okamoto teaches wherein the first cylindrical lens and the third cylindrical lens are fused together (Fig 6, Col 9, lines 58-64, adjacent lenses first lens 36 and third lens 38 fused by use of adhesive). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microscope of Buckland and Markle to include the lenses of Okamoto for the purpose of optimizing the structure integrity of a lens structure (Okamoto, Col 9, lines 58-64).
Regarding claim 3, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 1 and Buckland further teaches wherein the first pair of cylindrical lenses includes a first cylindrical lens and a second cylindrical lens, wherein the second pair of cylindrical lenses includes a third cylindrical lens and a fourth cylindrical lens (Fig 8, Fig 11, RBE (3) includes first cylindrical lens pair comprising lenses k & l and second cylindrical lens pair n & o) but does not teach wherein the second cylindrical lens and the fourth cylindrical lens are fused together. However, Okamoto teaches wherein the second cylindrical lens and the fourth cylindrical lens are fused together (Fig 6, Col 9, lines 58-64, adjacent lenses second lens 32 and fourth lens 36 fused by use of adhesive). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microscope of Buckland and Markle to include the lenses of Okamoto for the purpose of optimizing the structure integrity of a lens structure (Okamoto, Col 9, lines 58-64).
Claim(s) 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckland (20130265545) in view of Markle (5585972) and in further view of Tanaami (20060262428).
Regarding claim 6, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 4 but does not teach wherein a first focal length, associated with the first cylindrical lens, is different from a second focal length, associated with the second cylindrical lens. However, Tanaami teaches wherein a first focal length, associated with the first cylindrical lens, is different from a second focal length, associated with the second cylindrical lens (Fig 4A, Fig 4B, [0072], lens 42 has a short focal length f5, and lens 43 has a long focal length f6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microscope of Buckland and Markle to include the lenses of Tanaami to improve the efficiency and cost of an optical system (Tanaami, [0021]).
Regarding claim 10, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 8 but does not teach wherein a third focal length, associated with the third cylindrical lens, is different from a fourth focal length, associated with the fourth cylindrical lens. However, Tanaami teaches wherein a third focal length, associated with the third cylindrical lens, is different from a fourth focal length, associated with the fourth cylindrical lens (Fig 4A, Fig 4B, [0072], lens 42 has a short focal length f5, and lens 43 has a long focal length f6). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microscope of Buckland and Markle to include the lenses of Tanaami to improve the efficiency and cost of an optical system (Tanaami, [0021]).
Claim(s) 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckland (20130265545) in view of Markle (5585972) and in further view of Hauschild (6384981).
Regarding claim 7, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 4 but does not teach wherein a first focal length, associated with the first cylindrical lens, the same as a second focal length, associated with the second cylindrical lens. However, Hauschild teaches wherein a first focal length, associated with the first cylindrical lens, the same as a second focal length, associated with the second cylindrical lens (Fig 2, Col 6, lines 45-56, lens array B with same focal length is located in intermediate plane). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microscope of Buckland and Markle to include lenses of Hauschild for the purpose of improving the image quality of an intermediate plane and reducing the divergence of an image (Hauschild, Col 5, lines 35-40).
Regarding claim 11, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 8 but does not teach wherein a third focal length, associated with the third cylindrical lens, is the same as a fourth focal length, associated with the fourth cylindrical lens. However, Hauschild teaches wherein a third focal length, associated with the third cylindrical lens, is the same as a fourth focal length, associated with the fourth cylindrical lens (Fig 2, Col 6, lines 45-56, lens array B with same focal length is located in intermediate plane). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microscope of Buckland and Markle to include lenses of Hauschild for the purpose of improving the image quality of an intermediate plane and reducing the divergence of an image (Hauschild, Col 5, lines 35-40).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buckland (20130265545) in view of Markle (5585972) and in further view of Hatcher (3381569).
Regarding claim 12, Buckland in view of Markle discloses the invention as described within claim 1 but does not teach further comprising a mounting device, and wherein the first scanning mirror and the second scanning mirror are both attached to the mounting device. However, Hatcher teaches further comprising a mounting device, and wherein the first scanning mirror and the second scanning mirror are both attached to the mounting device (Col 3, lines 32-60, arms 24 and 26 are attached to plunger 31; as plunger 31 moves up and down, arms 24 and 26 oscillate 15 and 17 about their shafts. Oscillation of mirror 17 serves to scan field of view of detector 21). It would have been obvious before the effective filing of the invention to modify the microscope of Buckland and Markle to include the components of Hatcher for the purpose of providing a lightweight and compact scanning apparatus (Hatcher, Col 1, lines 68-70).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Taki (7980696), Raski (20110028954), and Streuber (20120074294) are examples of an ophthalmic photographing apparatus for photographing a tomographic image of an eye.
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