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 .
Abstract
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of informalities indicated in an attached, marked-up copy of the specification showing tracking of changes, wherein each change indicates an informality.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2, 4-5 and 9-17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Claim 1, lines 4-5 will be read as “a beamsplitter on the base for dividing [[a light beam from the swept laser between a reference arm and a sample arm; and”
In Claim 2, the only sentence therein will be read as “The system of claim 1, further comprising a cylindrical lens mounted to the base for conditioning the light beam from the swept laser to the beamsplitter.”
In Claim 4, the only sentence therein will be read as “The system of claim 1, further comprising a line generating lens for forming a line from the light beam from the swept laser.”
In Claim 5, the only sentence therein will be read as “The system of claim 4, wherein the line generating lens forms [[of a Gaussian distribution and more of a flat-top power distribution of the light beam from the swept laser.”
In Claim 9, the only sentence there will be read as “The system of claim 1, wherein the swept laser includes a gain chip for amplifying light in a laser cavity, a collimating lens for collimating light from the gain chip, an end reflector of the laser cavity, a focusing lens for focusing the collimated light on the end reflector, a thin film bandpass filter between the collimating lens and the focusing lens, and at least one angle control actuator for changing the angle of the thin film bandpass filter to the collimated light.”
In each of Claims 10-15, the preamble will be read as “The [[system of claim 9”
In Claim 16, lines 4-5 will be read as “a beamsplitter on the base for dividing [[a light beam from the swept laser between a reference arm and a sample arm;”
In Claim 16, the last line will be read as “a line generating lens for forming a line from the light beam from the swept laser.”
In Claim 17, the only sentence therein will be read as “The system of claim 16, wherein the line generating lens forms [[of a Gaussian distribution and more of a flat-top power distribution of the light beam from the swept laser.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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) 1-5, 7 and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gurov et al., "Line-field swept source optical coherence tomography system for evaluating microstructure of objects in near-infrared spectral range", Proc. SPIE 10333, Optical Methods for Inspection, Characterization, and Imaging of Biomaterials III, 103331L (26 June 2017); (cited in the IDS).
Regarding independent Claim 1, Gurov discloses an integrated line-field swept source OCT system (Figure 7: overall view of the line-field swept source OCT setup; [Abstract] “optical coherence tomography (OCT) system with illumination by a swept-source”), comprising:
a base (Figure 7: optical table with evenly-spaced holes);
a swept laser (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 1 shows a lighting unit comprising a fiber light source output; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “swept laser source (the model Santec TSL-510): spectral range λ = (1,26–1,36) µm”) on the base (Figure 7: optical table with evenly-spaced holes);
a beamsplitter (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 4 shows a beam splitter) on the base (Figure 7: optical table with evenly-spaced holes) for dividing a light beam (implicit for a beam splitter to divide a light beam) from the swept laser (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 1 shows a lighting unit comprising a fiber light source output; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “swept laser source (the model Santec TSL-510): spectral range λ = (1,26–1,36) µm”) between a reference arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 3 shows a reference channel) and a sample arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 2 shows a sample interferometer channel consisting of microscope lens and a unit providing translation and tilt of a sample); and
a line-field sensor (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 5 shows a project channel including projection lens and line-array photo detector; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “line-array photo detector model Lynx-CL-1024”) for detecting light (implicit for a line-array photo detector to detect light) from the reference arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 3 shows a reference channel) and the sample arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 2 shows a sample interferometer channel consisting of microscope lens and a unit providing translation and tilt of a sample).
Regarding Claim 2, Gurov discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a cylindrical lens (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 1 shows a lighting unit comprising a cylindrical collector; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “a simple cylindrical collector scheme was used that consists of two cylindrical lenses utilizing the Schott N-BK7 glass”) mounted to the base (Figure 7: optical table with evenly-spaced holes) for conditioning the light beam (implicit for a cylindrical lens to refract light along only one axis, using a curved, cylinder-shaped surface to focus light into a line rather than a single point, as known in the art) from the swept laser (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 1 shows a lighting unit comprising a fiber light source output; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “swept laser source (the model Santec TSL-510): spectral range λ = (1,26–1,36) µm”) to the beamsplitter (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 4 shows a beam splitter).
Regarding Claim 3, Gurov discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a bracket (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 5 shows a project channel comprising a black bracket) for mounting the line-field sensor (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 5 shows a project channel including projection lens and line-array photo detector; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “line-array photo detector model Lynx-CL-1024”) to the base (Figure 7: optical table with evenly-spaced holes).
Regarding Claim 4, Gurov discloses the system of claim 1, further comprising a line generating lens (Figure 2: element BR is a beam reshaper in a ray path in the designed lighting channel of the overall line-field swept source OCT setup; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “For the beam reshaper we utilized Galileo’s telescopic system that consists of two 10th order aspheric lenses”) for forming a line (as known in the art, aspheric lenses can form line illumination, specifically through the use of aspheric cylinders (acylinders), which have a cross-section that deviates from a circle, allowing them to bundle incident light into a sharp focal line without spherical aberration) from the light beam from the swept laser (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 1 shows a lighting unit comprising a fiber light source output; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “swept laser source (the model Santec TSL-510): spectral range λ = (1,26–1,36) µm”).
Regarding Claim 5, Gurov discloses the system of claim 4, wherein the line generating lens (Figure 2: element BR is a beam reshaper in a ray path in the designed lighting channel of the overall line-field swept source OCT setup; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “For the beam reshaper we utilized Galileo’s telescopic system that consists of two 10th order aspheric lenses”) forms less of a Gaussian distribution and more of a flat-top power distribution of the light beam from the swept laser (Figure 4(b) shows energy distribution of lighting line at sample plane, with beam reshaper).
Regarding Claim 7, Gurov discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the base (Figure 7: optical table with evenly-spaced holes) is generally t-shaped (Figure 7: overall view of the line-field swept source OCT setup shows dashed rectangles 1-5 arranged generally in a t-shape) with the swept laser (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 1 shows a lighting unit comprising a fiber light source output; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “swept laser source (the model Santec TSL-510): spectral range λ = (1,26–1,36) µm”) in the bottom and the reference arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 3 shows a reference channel) and sample arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 2 shows a sample interferometer channel consisting of microscope lens and a unit providing translation and tilt of a sample) at the top.
Regarding independent Claim 16, Gurov discloses an integrated line-field swept source OCT system (Figure 7: overall view of the line-field swept source OCT setup; [Abstract] “optical coherence tomography (OCT) system with illumination by a swept-source”), comprising:
a base (Figure 7: optical table with evenly-spaced holes);
a swept laser (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 1 shows a lighting unit comprising a fiber light source output; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “swept laser source (the model Santec TSL-510): spectral range λ = (1,26–1,36) µm”) on the base (Figure 7: optical table with evenly-spaced holes);
a beamsplitter (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 4 shows a beam splitter) on the base (Figure 7: optical table with evenly-spaced holes) for dividing a light beam (implicit for a beam splitter to divide a light beam) from the swept laser (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 1 shows a lighting unit comprising a fiber light source output; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “swept laser source (the model Santec TSL-510): spectral range λ = (1,26–1,36) µm”) between a reference arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 3 shows a reference channel) and a sample arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 2 shows a sample interferometer channel consisting of microscope lens and a unit providing translation and tilt of a sample);
a line-field sensor (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 5 shows a project channel including projection lens and line-array photo detector; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “line-array photo detector model Lynx-CL-1024”) for detecting light (implicit for a line-array photo detector to detect light) from the reference arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 3 shows a reference channel) and the sample arm (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 2 shows a sample interferometer channel consisting of microscope lens and a unit providing translation and tilt of a sample); and
a line generating lens (Figure 2: element BR is a beam reshaper in a ray path in the designed lighting channel of the overall line-field swept source OCT setup; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “For the beam reshaper we utilized Galileo’s telescopic system that consists of two 10th order aspheric lenses”) for forming a line (as known in the art, aspheric lenses can form line illumination, specifically through the use of aspheric cylinders (acylinders), which have a cross-section that deviates from a circle, allowing them to bundle incident light into a sharp focal line without spherical aberration) from the light beam from the swept laser (Figure 7: dashed rectangle 1 shows a lighting unit comprising a fiber light source output; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “swept laser source (the model Santec TSL-510): spectral range λ = (1,26–1,36) µm”).
Regarding Claim 17, Gurov discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the line generating lens (Figure 2: element BR is a beam reshaper in a ray path in the designed lighting channel of the overall line-field swept source OCT setup; [Section 3. OPTICAL DESIGN OF THE SYSTEM] “For the beam reshaper we utilized Galileo’s telescopic system that consists of two 10th order aspheric lenses”) forms less of a Gaussian distribution and more of a flat-top power distribution of the light beam from the swept laser (Figure 4(b) shows energy distribution of lighting line at sample plane, with beam reshaper).
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 6 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurov et al., "Line-field swept source optical coherence tomography system for evaluating microstructure of objects in near-infrared spectral range", Proc. SPIE 10333, Optical Methods for Inspection, Characterization, and Imaging of Biomaterials III, 103331L (26 June 2017); (cited in the IDS) in view of Tumlinson et al. (US 2022/0268565 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Gurov discloses the system of claim 4 and the line generating lens (see claim 4 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the line generating lens is a Powell lens.
However, Tumlinson, in the same field of swept source OCT systems, teaches that the line generating lens is a Powell lens (Figure 8: element 803 is line-generating optics; [0073] “asymmetric optics (803) such as cylinder or Powell lenses to create a line of illumination”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the teachings of Tumlinson, wherein the line generating lens is a Powell lens, because by distributing light uniformly rather than concentrating it in the center, they offer better signal-to-noise ratios in imaging applications.
Regarding Claim 18, Gurov discloses the system of claim 16 and the line generating lens (see claim 16 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the line generating lens is a Powell lens.
However, Tumlinson, in the same field of swept source OCT systems, teaches that the line generating lens is a Powell lens (Figure 8: element 803 is line-generating optics; [0073] “asymmetric optics (803) such as cylinder or Powell lenses to create a line of illumination”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the teachings of Tumlinson, wherein the line generating lens is a Powell lens, because by distributing light uniformly rather than concentrating it in the center, they offer better signal-to-noise ratios in imaging applications.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurov et al., "Line-field swept source optical coherence tomography system for evaluating microstructure of objects in near-infrared spectral range", Proc. SPIE 10333, Optical Methods for Inspection, Characterization, and Imaging of Biomaterials III, 103331L (26 June 2017); (cited in the IDS) in view of Everett et al. (US 2016/0209201 A1).
Regarding Claim 8, Gurov discloses the system of claim 1 and the reference arm (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach a translation stage for changing a length of the reference arm.
However, Everett, in the same field of interferometric imaging systems, teaches a translation stage (Figure 9: element 756 is a translation stage; [0038]) for changing a length of the reference arm ([0038] “This enables the optical path length of the reference arm to be adjusted”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the teachings of Everett, for a translation stage for changing a length of the reference arm, because to image different depths within a sample, the reference arm length is adjusted to match the time-of-flight of light from specific internal layers, allowing for sectional imaging.
Claim(s) 9 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurov et al., "Line-field swept source optical coherence tomography system for evaluating microstructure of objects in near-infrared spectral range", Proc. SPIE 10333, Optical Methods for Inspection, Characterization, and Imaging of Biomaterials III, 103331L (26 June 2017); (cited in the IDS) in view of Wang et al., "A 657-nm narrow bandwidth interference filter-stabilized diode laser," Chin. Opt. Lett. 9, 041402 (28 March 2011); (cited in the IDS).
Regarding Claim 9, Gurov discloses the system of claim 1 and the swept laser (see claim 1 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the swept laser includes a gain chip for amplifying light in a laser cavity, a collimating lens for collimating light from the gain chip, an end reflector of the laser cavity, a focusing lens for focusing the collimated light on the end reflector, a thin film bandpass filter between the collimating lens and the focusing lens, and at least one angle control actuator for changing the angle of the thin film bandpass filter to the collimated light.
However, Wang, in the same field of interference filter-stabilized diode lasers, teaches that the swept laser includes a gain chip (Figure 1: LD is an AlGaInP laser diode) for amplifying light in a laser cavity (Figure 1; [Page 041402-1, Column 1] “cavity formed by the mirror and the back facet of the diode is approximately 70 mm in length”), a collimating lens (Figure 1: LC is a collimating lens) for collimating light ([Page 041402-1, Column 1] “Light is emitted …, … and then collimated by an aspheric lens”) from the gain chip (Figure 1: LD is an AlGaInP laser diode), an end reflector (Figure 1: PZT OC; [Page 041402-1, Column 1] “The partial reflecting mirror is glued onto a piezo-electric transducer (PZT) tube”) of the laser cavity (Figure 1; [Page 041402-1, Column 1] “cavity formed by the mirror and the back facet of the diode is approximately 70 mm in length”), a focusing lens (Figure 1: L1 is the lens forming a “cat’s eye” with OC) for focusing the collimated light (Figure 1: collimated light is marked with arrows) on the end reflector (Figure 1: PZT OC; [Page 041402-1, Column 1] “The partial reflecting mirror is glued onto a piezo-electric transducer (PZT) tube”), a thin film bandpass filter (Figure 1: IF is an interference filter for wavelength selection) between the collimating lens (Figure 1: LC is a collimating lens) and the focusing lens (Figure 1: L1 is the lens forming a “cat’s eye” with OC), and at least one angle control actuator ([Page 041402-1, Column 2] “a mirror mount with fine angle adjustment”) for changing the angle of the thin film bandpass filter ([Page 041402-1, Column 1] “adjusting the angle of the frequency selective element”) to the collimated light (Figure 1: collimated light is marked with arrows).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the teachings of Wang, wherein the swept laser includes a gain chip for amplifying light in a laser cavity, a collimating lens for collimating light from the gain chip, an end reflector of the laser cavity, a focusing lens for focusing the collimated light on the end reflector, a thin film bandpass filter between the collimating lens and the focusing lens, and at least one angle control actuator for changing the angle of the thin film bandpass filter to the collimated light, because “this configuration shows outstanding performance. Different from the commonly used Littrow and Littmann configurations with diffraction grating involving light reflections, its linear cavity design with the filter is less sensitive to misalignment induced by mechanical and thermal disturbances and also reduces the angle change when the laser wavelength is tuned by adjusting the angle of the frequency selective element.” (Wang, Page 041402-1, Column 1)
Regarding Claim 12, modified Gurov discloses the system of claim 9 and the thin film bandpass filter (see claim 9 rejection), but does not specifically teach that a pass band of the thin film bandpass filter is between 0.05 nanometers (nm) and 5 nm wide, full width at half maximum (FWHM).
However, Wang, in the same field of interference filter-stabilized diode lasers, teaches that a pass band of the thin film bandpass filter (Figure 1: IF is an interference filter for wavelength selection) is between 0.05 nanometers (nm) and 5 nm wide, full width at half maximum (FWHM) ([Page 041402-1, Column 1] “0.45-nm full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of the interference filter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the teachings of Wang, wherein a pass band of the thin film bandpass filter is between 0.05 nanometers (nm) and 5 nm wide, full width at half maximum (FWHM), to use optimum range in order to obtain a predictable result. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding Claim 13, modified Gurov discloses the system of claim 9 and the thin film bandpass filter (see claim 9 rejection), but does not specifically teach that a pass band of the thin film bandpass filter is between 0.1 nm and 2 nm wide, FWHM.
However, Wang, in the same field of interference filter-stabilized diode lasers, teaches that a pass band of the thin film bandpass filter (Figure 1: IF is an interference filter for wavelength selection) is between 0.1 nm and 2 nm wide, FWHM ([Page 041402-1, Column 1] “0.45-nm full-width at half-maximum (FWHM) of the interference filter”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the teachings of Wang, wherein a pass band of the thin film bandpass filter is between 0.1 nm and 2 nm wide, FWHM, to use optimum range in order to obtain a predictable result. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or working ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurov et al., "Line-field swept source optical coherence tomography system for evaluating microstructure of objects in near-infrared spectral range", Proc. SPIE 10333, Optical Methods for Inspection, Characterization, and Imaging of Biomaterials III, 103331L (26 June 2017); (cited in the IDS) and Wang et al., "A 657-nm narrow bandwidth interference filter-stabilized diode laser," Chin. Opt. Lett. 9, 041402 (28 March 2011); (cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Swanson et al. (US 2014/0376000 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, modified Gurov discloses the system of claim 9 and the gain chip (see claim 9 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the gain chip is a GaAlAs chip.
However, Swanson, in the same field of integrated optical coherence tomography systems, structures, and methods, teaches that the gain chip is a GaAlAs chip (Figure 23(a); [0133] “Note that the structures depicted in FIGS. 18-23 show an optical gain chip set into a silicon photonics PIC. There are a variety of other methods to add an optical gain compatibility with a silicon substrate such as using wafer bonding, regrowth, or directly doping the silicon PIC with germanium or rare earth dopants to provide gain. Furthermore it is possible to build the entire PIC out of another optically compatible medium such as InP, InAs, GaAs, GaAlAs, InGaAs, or many other optically compatible semiconductor materials”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the teachings of Swanson, wherein the gain chip is a GaAlAs chip, because said chip is ideal for high-speed, high-power, and quantum information applications, due to high electron mobility and bandgap tunability.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurov et al., "Line-field swept source optical coherence tomography system for evaluating microstructure of objects in near-infrared spectral range", Proc. SPIE 10333, Optical Methods for Inspection, Characterization, and Imaging of Biomaterials III, 103331L (26 June 2017); (cited in the IDS) and Wang et al., "A 657-nm narrow bandwidth interference filter-stabilized diode laser," Chin. Opt. Lett. 9, 041402 (28 March 2011); (cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yvind et al. (US 2015/0171597 A1).
Regarding Claim 11, modified Gurov discloses the system of claim 9 and the gain chip (see claim 9 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the gain chip is mounted in a TO-can hermetic package.
However, Yvind, in the same field of wavelength sweepable laser sources, teaches that the gain chip is mounted in a TO-can hermetic package (Figure 7; [0067] “The laser source 100 is encapsulated in a housing formed by a base plate 702, to which the laser source 100 is attached and a dome or cup shaped cover 701 having an open end covered by the base plate 702. The cover 701 comprises a window 703 allowing the laser beam 704 to exit the housing. […] The window 703 may be made from glass, e.g. borosilicate glass. […] The electrical contacts 705 to the laser source 100 may be led through the base plate. Generally, the housing may be formed as a transistor outline (TO) can”; [0068] “the interior of the housing may be at least partially evacuated so as to provide a low or medium vacuum inside the housing”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the teachings of Yvind, wherein the gain chip is mounted in a TO-can hermetic package, for “allowing heat generated by the laser source to be dissipated.” (Yvind, para 67)
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurov et al., "Line-field swept source optical coherence tomography system for evaluating microstructure of objects in near-infrared spectral range", Proc. SPIE 10333, Optical Methods for Inspection, Characterization, and Imaging of Biomaterials III, 103331L (26 June 2017); (cited in the IDS) and Wang et al., "A 657-nm narrow bandwidth interference filter-stabilized diode laser," Chin. Opt. Lett. 9, 041402 (28 March 2011); (cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Noumi et al. (US 2023/0228556 A1).
Regarding Claim 14, modified Gurov discloses the system of claim 9, but does not specifically teach that the at least one angle control actuator is a galvanometer.
However, Noumi, in the same field of optical coherence tomography devices, teaches that the at least one angle control actuator is a galvanometer ([0057] “a wavelength-swept filter (e.g., driving with a polygonal mirror, driving with a galvanometer mirror)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the teachings of Noumi, wherein the at least one angle control actuator is a galvanometer, because using a galvanometer to rotate a filter provides high-speed, precise angular control, often used for modulating light, switching optical paths, or compensating for image shift in imaging systems.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gurov et al., "Line-field swept source optical coherence tomography system for evaluating microstructure of objects in near-infrared spectral range", Proc. SPIE 10333, Optical Methods for Inspection, Characterization, and Imaging of Biomaterials III, 103331L (26 June 2017); (cited in the IDS) and Wang et al., "A 657-nm narrow bandwidth interference filter-stabilized diode laser," Chin. Opt. Lett. 9, 041402 (28 March 2011); (cited in the IDS) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yazdanfar et al. (US 2013/0162948 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, modified Gurov discloses the system of claim 9 and the at least one angle control actuator (see claim 9 rejection), but does not specifically teach that the at least one angle control actuator is a servomechanism.
However, Yazdanfar, in the same field of optical coherence tomography imaging techniques, teaches a servomechanism ([0029] “In one embodiment, the control mechanism may include a servo control”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Gurov with the servo control of Yazdanfar, such that the at least one angle control actuator is a servomechanism, because using a servomechanism for rotation offers unparalleled precision, high torque-to-inertia ratios for rapid acceleration, and closed-loop feedback that ensures accuracy by constantly adjusting position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Akbar H Rizvi whose telephone number is (571) 272-5085. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Tarifur R Chowdhury can be reached at (571) 272-2287. 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.
/AKBAR H. RIZVI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877