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 .
This action is responsive to the initial filing of 07/28/2023.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because FIGs. 10-12, which compare results from six variations on OCT methods, include “Max Corr.” and “CM” among the labels of data sets visualized. The corresponding description in the specification (e.g., paragraph 133 et seq) does not use those labels, but does use “NCC” and “ICC”, which are not found in these figures.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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.
Claims 1-17 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.
Claim 1 introduces a first portion of the beam and a second portion of the beam, then later introduces a first portion and a second portion. It is unclear whether these are the same first and second portions or different first and second portions. The claim is interpreted as them not needing to be the same first and second portions.
Claims 4-6 also reference the first and second portions and it is unclear which first and second portions they refer to. They are interpreted as mapped to prior art below.
Claim 15 refers to “the coupler”. There is inadequate antecedent basis for this claim term. The coupler is interpreted as the component that splits the combined light to direct portions to the first and second photodetectors (depicted as the fiber coupler labeled FC2 in the embodiments shown in the embodiments found if FIG. 2 and FIG. 3, for example).
Claims 2-17 are indefinite for depending, directly or indirectly, on indefinite claim 1 and failing to fix its indefiniteness.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
The limitation found in claim 6 is that the first and second portion contain noise. Both the first portions and both the second portions in claim 1 are beams of light, which will inherently contain noise, including shot noise and relative intensity noise in the light itself, and, while the claimed invention may strive to account for or reduce certain forms of noise, no technology described in the present disclosure can prevent the light from having some amount of noise (in fact, certain aspects necessary to the claimed invention rely on the presence of relative intensity noise). Since no system can fall within the scope of claim 1 without also falling within the broadest reasonable interpretation of its dependent claim 6, claim 6 fails to provide a further limitation to claim 1.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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) 1-12, 14-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rubinoff (Non-Patent Literature “High-Speed Balanced-Detection Visible-Light Optical Coherence Tomography in the Human Retina Using Subpixel Spectrometer Calibration”).
Regarding claim 1, Rubinoff teaches an optical coherence tomography (OCT) imaging system (FIG. 1a), the system comprising:
a light source to generate a beam of radiation (FIG. 1a, supercontinuum laser SCL);
a first photodetector to acquire first data with respect to the beam of radiation (FIG. 1A, spectrometer SRB);
a second photodetector to acquire second data with respect to the beam of radiation (FIG. 1A, spectrometer SRA);
a beam splitter to direct a first portion of the beam to a sample arm and to direct a second portion of the beam to a reference arm, the beam splitter to combine first light from the sample arm and second light from the reference arm to form combined light (FIG. 1A, fiber coupler FC1), the combined light to be split into a first portion to be detected by the first photodetector to form the first data and a second portion to be detected by the second photodetector to form the second data (FIG. 1A, fiber coupler FC2); and
processor circuitry (FIG. 1a, inside of unlabeled computer near the center of the figure) to generate a first noise profile of the first data (FIG. 3D, SRB noise profile) and a second noise profile of the second data (FIG. 3D, SRA noise profile), the processor to compare the first noise profile and the second noise profile (section III A, first sentence), the processor to generate an image using the first data, the second data, and the comparison of the first noise profile and the second noise profile (FIG. 4B), the processor to store the image for at least one of analysis or deployment (the image in FIG. 4B was deployed into the cited scientific paper by Rubinoff, as evidenced by its presence therein).
Regarding claim 2, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the light source is at least one of a laser, a wideband light source, a wideband spatially coherent light source, a supercontinuum laser light source, a lamp, a superluminescent diode (SLD), an amplified spontaneous emission (ASE) light source, or a light-emitting diode (LED) (FIG. 1a, supercontinuum laser SCL, which fits into at least the categories of laser, wideband light source, and supercontinuum laser light source).
Regarding claim 3, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein at least one of the first photodetector or the second photodetector is a spectrometer (FIG. 1A, spectrometers SRB and SRA are both spectrometers).
Regarding claim 4, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the first photodetector acquires the first portion of the combined light and the second photodetector independently acquires the second portion of the combined light (FIG. 1D shows independent measurements of intensities from the two spectrometers).
Regarding claim 5, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the first portion and the second portion have an interference with contribution from the sample arm and the reference arm (section I, final paragraph, second sentence, where the interferometer is pictured in FIG. 1A).
Regarding claim 6, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the first portion and the second portion contain noise (inherent. Also see FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the first noise profile represents a first interference fringe and wherein the second noise profile represents a second interference fringe (section I, final paragraph, third sentence).
Regarding claim 8, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 7 (as described above), wherein the processor circuitry is to apply an interpolation vector to the second noise profile to align the second noise profile with the first noise profile (section II B, penultimate sentence).
Regarding claim 9, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 8 (as described above), wherein the processor circuitry is to subtract the aligned second noise profile from the first noise profile to determine a difference (section I, final paragraph, third sentence).
Regarding claim 10, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 9 (as described above), wherein the processor circuitry is to: resample using the difference (section I, final paragraph, first sentence, interpolation using the polynomial-based mapping); correct dispersion (section II B, final sentence, compensation for dispersion mismatch); perform a linear transform (section II B, final sentence, Fourier transform); and output the image (FIG. 5, which was output at least to the published paper (and likely in other ways before that)).
Regarding claim 11, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 10 (as described above), wherein the linear transform includes a Fourier transform (section II B, final sentence, Fourier transform).
Regarding claim 12, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 10 (as described above), wherein the processor circuitry is to generate a calibration map from noise remaining after the linear transform (FIG. 3E).
Regarding claim 14, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor circuitry is to reduce an intensity of the light source to a threshold value (section I, paragraph 3, ANSI laser safety standards).
Regarding claim 15, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the coupler includes fiber optics (FIG. 1A, fiber coupler FC1 and fiber coupler FC2 each include fiber optics).
Regarding claim 16, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above), wherein the processor circuitry applies a spectral filter to compare the first noise profile and the second noise profile (section II B, removing DC components).
Regarding claim 18, Rubinoff teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions that, when executed, cause processor circuitry (FIG. 1A, inside unlabeled computer near center of figure) to at least:
generate a first noise profile (FIG. 3d, SRB noise profile) from a first portion of data received in combination from a sample arm and a reference arm, the first portion received by a first photodetector (FIG. 1A, spectrometer SRB);
generate a second noise profile (FIG. 3D, SRA noise profile) from a second portion of data received in combination from the sample arm and the reference arm, the second portion received by a second photodetector (FIG. 1A, spectrometer SRA);
compare the first noise profile and the second noise profile (section III A, first sentence);
generate an image using the first portion of data, the second portion of data, and the comparison of the first noise profile and the second noise profile (FIG. 4B); and
output the image for at least one of analysis or deployment (the image in FIG. 4B was deployed into the cited scientific paper by Rubinoff, as evidenced by its presence therein).
Regarding claim 19, Rubinoff teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 18 (as described above), wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor circuitry to:
apply an interpolation vector to the second noise profile to align the second noise profile with the first noise profile (section II B, penultimate sentence); and
subtract the aligned second noise profile from the first noise profile to determine a difference (section I, final paragraph, third sentence).
Regarding claim 20, Rubinoff teaches the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 19 (as described above), wherein the instructions, when executed, cause the processor circuitry to: resample using the difference (section I, final paragraph, first sentence, interpolation using the polynomial-based mapping); correct dispersion (section II B, final sentence, compensation for dispersion mismatch); perform a linear transform (section II B, final sentence, Fourier transform); and output the image (FIG. 5, which was output at least to the published paper (and likely in other ways before that)).
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.
Claim(s) 13 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubinoff (Non-Patent Literature “High-Speed Balanced-Detection Visible-Light Optical Coherence Tomography in the Human Retina Using Subpixel Spectrometer Calibration”).
Regarding claim 13, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 8 (as described above).
Rubinoff further teaches the interpolation vector is generated by a polynomial (section II B, third-order polynomial) with coefficients (inherent to polynomials), A-line reconstruction (section II B, final sentence), and reduction in a DC term (section II B, removing DC components).
While Rubinoff does not explicitly teach that the polynomials involved are fist order or second order, Rubinoff does teach third-order polynomials. A first- or second-order polynomial is a third order polynomial with two or one of the coefficients of its leading terms set to zero. Note that fitting substantially linear or quadratic data with a third-order polynomial can result in those coefficients being substantially zero. Additionally, if one does not care for the added accuracy of a third-order polynomial fit, it is easy to not use the additional terms, ending up with a first- or second-order polynomial fit. Removing both a feature (such as the cubic (and potentially the quadratic) term of a polynomial fit) along the function performed by that feature (such as the increased accuracy gained by the cubic term in the fit) if one does not desire that function is generally insufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the OCT imaging system of Rubinoff by using simpler polynomial fit, sacrificing the undesired improvement in accuracy gained by the more sophisticated third-degree polynomial to improve calculation speed and simplicity.
Regarding claim 17, Rubinoff teaches the system of claim 1 (as described above).
Rubinoff does not explicitly teach that the first photodetector and the second photodetector are combined in a single unit, however, simply making two separate components, such as spectrometer SRB and spectrometer SRA, integral in such a way that each retains its original, separate function, such as taking independent spectrometric measurements, without further interaction or synergy is generally insufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the OCT imaging system of Rubinoff by making the two separate spectrometers integral as a single unit that performs the two spectrometric measurements independently on separate channels within the one unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL D SCHNASE whose telephone number is (703)756-1691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at (571) 272-3995. 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/UZMA ALAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877