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 .
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.
Claim 10 is 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 10 recites “the optical switch is a 1xN switch, the multi-fiber ferrule has N + 1 fibers”. The term “N” is introduced without definition or stated bounds (e.g., whether N is an integer, whether N may vary between embodiments, or whether N corresponds strictly to the number of selectable outputs of the recited switch). As drafted, “N” could reasonably encompass different values leading to different claim scope (e.g., N = 1, N ≥ 2).
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) 1, 4, 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu CN 111671391A in view of Everett et al. US 2019/0056214.
Regarding claim 1, Liu teaches an optical coherence tomography (OCT) device (see abstract: OCT) comprising:
a light source for generating a beam of light (Fig. 5: sweep light source 1 whose light enters the fiber coupler 21);
a first set of beam dividers and a second set of beam dividers, at least the second set of beam dividers including a plurality of beam dividers (Fig. 5: teaches fiber couplers (beam dividing elements) e.g., a third fiber coupler (31) on one branch and a fifth fiber coupler (41) on another each branch performing splits/combiner for sample/reference and detection; Liu teaches at least the fifth fiber coupler (41) splitting into sample and reference arm and the sixth fiber coupler 48 dividing the interference signal into beams for detection – thereby satisfying a second set including a plurality of beam dividers);
an optical switch for selectively transferring the beam of light to one of the first set of beam dividers and the second set of beam dividers (Fig. 5: expressly discloses optical switch 63 with ports: first port from the upstream coupler, a second port to the third coupler (31) and a third port to the fifth coupler (41), Liu further in page 13 teaches “switch selects between anterior-segment and fundus OCT paths and highlights fast switching with no mechanical motion in the sample arm”),
the first set of beam dividers directing a first portion of its received light into a reference arm and a second portion of its received light into a sample arm (page 13 teaches: “beam from the optical switch 63 into the third optical fiber coupler 31, then respectively enter into the sample arm and the reference arm”),
the second set of beam dividers directing a first portion of its received light into said reference arm and a second portion of its received light into said sample arm (Fig. 5 and pages 12-13: teaches photodetection with photodetectors and a signal acquisition chain, including that the sixth coupler splits the interference equally to two detectors i.e., 39 and 49);
optics for directing the light in the sample arm to one or more locations on a sample (Fig. 5: depicts details the sample-side optics and scanning units (collimator, first and second scanning units, dichroic, etc.) that direct and focus the beam to the eye E);
one or more detectors for receiving light returning from sample arm and the reference arm, and generating signals in response thereto; and
a processor for converting the signals into image data (page 10: teaches controller/computer (GPU) that runs acquisition and reconstruction to produce B-scan and 3-D images).
While Liu meets the foregoing elements, it does not expressly disclose that both electable sets of beam dividers fee the same (singular) “said sample arm”. Instead, Liu optical switch selects between two different branches, each with its own sample and reference arm optical paths (anterior-segments vs. fundus). Thus, Liu lacks the claimed “switchable sets shared (singular) sample arms”.
In the same field of endeavor, Everette teaches OCT field and teaches switching among multiple sample arm channels while keeping the same sample arm optics and illuminating the same sample location without moving the sample arms optics (see the discussion accompanying Fig. 2D (para 0061) with an optical switch in the same sample arm 210). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the Liu which already values fast switching, no mechanical motion in the sample arm, and high stability by adopting Everett shared sample arm arrangement so that both selectable sets (branches) feed the same sample arm optics, which predictable benefits is long recognized in the art: fewer duplicated optics.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Liu teaches the device of claim 1, and Liu further teaches wherein: the first set of beam dividers includes a single beam divider effective for generating a single scan beam (Fig.5: switch-selectable branch to the third fiber coupler 31 is a single coupler path that splits into sample/reference arms), and the plurality of beam dividers of the second set of beam dividers each generate a respective separate scan beam (Fig. 5 and page 12: teaches plurality of beam dividers 41 and 48 for different scanning signal).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Liu teaches the device of claim 1, Liu further teaches (a source, first/second sets of beam dividers arranged as switch-selectable branches (optical switch 63 routing to couplers 31 vs 41), standard sample/reference arms and sample side optical that include scanning units). However, Liu fails to teach wherein the outputs of the first and second sets of beam dividers share a scanner.
Everett teaches wherein the outputs of the first and second sets of beam dividers share a scanner (para 0038 explains: “Typical sample arm optics 115 include a beam collimating lens or lenses at the output of the fiber, a scanner between the output of the fiber and the sample, so that the beam of light is scanned laterally (in x and y) over the region of the sample to be imaged, and one or more focusing lenses”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Liu so that the outputs of the first and second set feed to have the sample-arm optics 115 with a single shared scanner as taught by Everett, because such modification provides lower cost/size and improved stability of the OCT device.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Liu teaches the device of claim 1, and Everett further teaches wherein the respective light of the first and second sets of beams dividers returning from sample arm interfere with the same light returning from the reference arm (see para 0054 and Figs. 2a-2d: teaches two or three sample arms and only one reference arm beam path).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu and Everett as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhou US 2014/0160488.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Liu and Everett teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the second set of beam dividers provides a respective plurality of OCT beams, each directed to a different part of the sample.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches space-division multiplexing OCT squarely discloses splitting the sample arm light into multiple beams that simultaneously interrogate multiple different sample (see para 0007: “enables synchronized simultaneous imaging at multiple different sample locations using multiple beams, which opens up opportunities for numerous biomedical applications.”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement the “second set” in Liu as multi-beam branch in view of Everett and Zhou (teaching that sample arm light is split into a plurality of beams that simultaneously interrogate different parts of the sample. Doing so is providing simultaneous imaging at multiple different sample locations.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Liu teaches the device of claim 2, and Zhou further teaches wherein the plurality of OCT beams each scans a different part of the sample that comprise a composite image of the sample (para 0012 teaches: “by each of the plurality of sampling beams; combining the plurality of reflected light signals into a single reflected light signal comprised of the plurality of reflected light signals; and combining the single reflected light signal and the reflected light signal to produce an interference signal, the interference signal comprising data representing digitized images of sample”. This is exactly a composite output formed from multiple sub-regions scanned by the plural beams).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Liu teaches the device of claim 1, Liu further teaches an optical switch (63) whose first port receives light from the upstream coupler and whose second and third ports feed different downstream coupler branches (e.g., coupler 31 and 41), expressly stating that the switch is used to select between imaging paths and emphasizing “fast switching” and no mechanical motion in the sample arm. However, Liu does not expressly disclose wherein the optical switch switches between a single scanning mode and a multi-scanning mode.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches that sample arm light is split into a plurality of sampling beams and a scanner simultaneously scans the plurality of beams onto the sample i.e., multi-scanning mode (see para 0008 and 0036). It also describes collecting multiple reflected signals and combining them into a single reflected signal used to form the image (para 0012). Accordingly, given Liu already used an upstream optical switch to choose between alternative interferometer branches, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure one switch position as a single scan branch (a single divider one scan beam; taught by Liu’s coupler 31 path) and configure the other switch position as a multi scan branch (Zhou plural beam scanned simultaneously). These yields switching between a single scanning mode and a multi scanning mode using known OCT building blocks, with predictable benefits (wider effective FOV, higher effective rate when in multi-scan; alignment simplicity and stability retained by switching) and no change in principle of operation.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Liu teaches the device of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the outputs of the first and second sets of beam dividers are coupled to a respective fiber of a multi-fiber ferrule, and the multi-fiber ferrule produces a respective OCT beam for each signal received at its respective fibers, the OCT beams share the same optical path to the sample in the sample arm.
In the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches beam dividers are coupled to a respective fiber of a multi-fiber ferrule, and the multi-fiber ferrule produces a respective OCT beam for each signal received at its respective fibers, the OCT beams share the same optical path to the sample in the sample arm (see Fig. 1, para 0043: “the sample arm light beam may be split by a 1.times.8 optical splitter and transmitted into eight different optical fibers 175 forming an optical fiber array 170 for sampling (see, e.g. FIG. 2).”, see also para 0056: “Each optical fiber 175 therefore is operable to transmit an individual sampling beam and receive back in return an individual respective reflected light or signal from the sample.”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to implement Liu’s and Everett’s switch selected branch outputs using Zhou’s multi-fiber array (170/175) on a single sample arm, so that the switch can select among modes while multiple fiber carried beams are delivered through the same sample arm optics, which provide reducing hardware duplication, preserving alignment and enabling wider FOV with effective rate.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Liu teaches the device of claim 8, Liu further teaches the OCT device architecture with an optical switch that selects between sets of beam dividers (branches), splitting into sample/reference arms and employing sample-arm scanning optics to illuminate the eye. However, Liu fails to teach wherein the fibers of the multi-fiber ferrule are arranged to provide at least two scan beams covering the same area on the sample with a fixed delay delta-time defined as the number of A-scans contained in the distance between the two OCT beams.
Zhou teaches multi-fiber array on the sample arm (e.g., fibers of an array receiving light from a 1xN splitter) (see para 0043) and a single sample arm optical path with one scanner that simultaneously scans the plurality of sampling beams over the sample (see para 0009-0010). Thus, Zhou supplies the multi-fiber/array and shared scanner elements that enable geometric control of inter-beam timing. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a POSITA to arrange two fibers of Zhou sample-arm fiber array so their output spots lie collinearly along the fast-scan direction of the single, shared scanner. Under this arrangement, as the shared scanner sweeps a field once, both beams cover the same area with fixed temporal offset Δt determined by the latera separation Δx of the two spots and the known scan velocity vscan (i.e., Δt = Δx/vscan). Since the A-scan pitch along the fast axis is fixed, this directly yields a fixed delta-time expressed as an inter number of A-scans equal to the distance (in A-scan pitches) between the two beams. Selecting the fiber-to-fiber spacing in the array to achieve a desired A-scan offset is a routine design choice once Zhou’s single-scanner, multi-beam configuration is adopted.
Regarding claim 10, Liu teaches the device of claim 8, wherein the optical switch is a 1×N switch (Fig. 5: switch 63 is 1x2). Liu fails to teach the multi-fiber ferrule has N+1 fibers, the switch selects between one or multiples of two beam dividers, and each of the selected divider produces a separate OCT beam to scan a different area of the sample. Zhou teaches multi-fiber output (fiber array) on the sample arm in which a splitter yields multiple beam (see para 0043: 1x8 optical splitter and transmitted into eight different optical fibers). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Liu by utilizing the claimed multi-fiber ferrule has N+1 fibers as taught by Zhou so that the switch can select among modes while multiple fiber carried beams are delivered through the same sample arm optics, which provide reducing hardware duplication, preserving alignment and enabling wider FOV with effective rate.
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) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Horn et al. US 2006/0164639.
Regarding claim 11, Horn teaches a spectral domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) system (see para 0004: Spectral domain OCT (SD-OCT)) comprising:
a broad light source for generating a beam of light (see Fig. 9 and para 0080: “light from a broadband source 950 is directed through a single mode fiber 952”);
a beam divider for directing a first portion of the light into a reference arm and a second portion of the light into a sample arm (Fig. 9 and para 0080: “light from a broadband source 950 is directed through a single mode fiber 952 to a fiber coupler 954 and is split into the sample arm 956 and the reference arm 958. Light returned from the sample arm 956 interferes with light returned from the reference arm 9”);
optics for directing the light in the sample arm to one or more locations on a sample (see para 0080: “Light returned from the sample arm 956 interferes with light returned from the reference arm 958” and para 0082: “Other optical component can be included in the optical path to manipulate the property of the light beam, examples include polarizer(s), polarization controller(s), polarization beam splitter(s), waveplate(s), lens(es), mirror(s), non-polarization beam splitter(s), and so on, in the fiber optics or bulk optics form”);
a spectrometer for measuring light returning from the sample and reference arms as a function of wavelength and generating signals in response thereto,
the spectrometer including a plurality of different gratings for separately receiving the returning light (para 0012: “The spectrometer includes a first grating for dispersing the incoming light beam as a function of wavelength. This grating typically is a coarsely ruled echelle grating operating in high diffraction orders m>30 for example. The spectral range that needs to be covered in a high resolution SD-OCT system will therefore fall in multiple (for example five) diffraction orders, which spatially overlap”); and
a processor for converting the signals into image data gratings (para 0081: “The Fourier transform of the spectral intensities recorded by detector array 750 provides the reflectance distribution along the path of the sample, e.g. along the depth within the sample”); wherein different imaging depths and resolution are provided by the plurality of different (see para 0017: “Greater dispersion increases the resolution of the spectrometer, allowing close fringes to be resolved, giving better depth range to the tomograms”).
Regarding claim 14, Horn teaches the system of claim 11, wherein the plurality of different gratings are arranged to provide no overlap (para 0012: “This echelle grating is followed by a second dispersive element which can be a grating or a prism, with its dispersion direction oriented perpendicular to the echelle grating thus eliminating the spatial order overlap from the light diffracted at the echelle grating”), and the returning light is applied to each of the plurality of different gratings (para 0080: “Light returned from the sample arm 956 interferes with light returned from the reference arm 958. Part of the interfered optical beam is guided by the detection arm 960 and sent to the cross-dispersed spectrometer”), each generating a separate signal in response thereto (see claim 1: “photodetector including at least two linear detector arrays, said arrays extending along said first axis, with one of said arrays being positioned to receive one of said diffraction orders and the other array being positioned to receive the other diffraction order, each array for generating output signals as a function of wavelength”).
Claim(s) 12 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horn as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Hideki et al. US Patent No. 3,306,158.
Regarding claim 12, Horn teaches the system of claim 11, except for wherein the returning light is selectively and separately applied to a different one of said plurality of different gratings.
Hideki teaches grating spectroscopes (see col. 1 lines 11-13), including a grating turret/turntable that lest you selectively move one of multiple grating into the optical path (col. 2 lines 52-56: “at least two diffraction grating are arranged on a turntable… so that they may be positioned alternatively in the optical path of the spectroscope”, further teach col. 3 lines 62-68: “three gratings G1, G2 and G3 are mounted… on turntable 22… so that when the turntable 22 is turned, they may successively become in the line of reflection from a collimating mirror 23”). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the device of Horn by implementing the plurality of different gratings to maintain alignment by keeping gratings kinematically registered on a turret and also provide rapid mode change.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Horn and Hideki teaches the system of claim 12, and Hideki further teaches wherein the plurality of different gratings are movable, and a separate one of said plurality of different gratings is selectively moved into, and out of, the optical path of the returning light (col. 2 lines 52-56: “at least two diffraction grating are arranged on a turntable… so that they may be positioned alternatively in the optical path of the spectroscope”, further teach col. 3 lines 62-68: “three gratings G1, G2 and G3 are mounted… on turntable 22… so that when the turntable 22 is turned, they may successively become in the line of reflection from a collimating mirror 23”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EPHREM ZERU MEBRAHTU whose telephone number is (571)272-8386. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am -6 pm (M-F).
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, Thomas Pham can be reached at 571-272-3689. 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.
/EPHREM Z MEBRAHTU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872