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 amendment of 2/12/2026.
Response to Arguments
Specification
The objection to the specification is overcome by amendment.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b)
The word “about” has been removed from the claims, so the corresponding indefiniteness rejections are overcome by amendment.
The Examiner appreciates the clarification in Applicant’s remarks dated 2/12/2026 regarding the central wavelengths and wavelength ranges found in claims 17-18 and 27-28. The corresponding indefiniteness rejections are withdrawn.
Prior Art Rejections
Applicant’s first argument is that Zhou does not teach selecting an optical path using the optical multiplexer as recited in claim 14 or a multiplexer configured to select one of the optical paths as recited in claim 24, instead teaching that the paths are synchronously scanned, however, this argument is not persuasive. In particular, sending an optical signal into an optical path and receiving a return signal from that optical path would fall within the broadest reasonable interpretation of selecting that optical path. The optical splitter of Zhou does that to one of the optical paths. Nothing in the claim language, even as currently amended, suggests any form of special treatment for the selected optical path compared to the other optical paths in the plurality of optical paths, such as being the only path used to send and receive signals. In fact, the claim language requires processing of output signals from a plurality of optical paths, not just one selected path. As a result, it is unclear how selecting one path would be at odds with synchronously scanning with other paths.
Applicant’s second argument is that is that Zhou fails to disclose a plurality of signals having depth ranges of at least 1 cm, however, this argument is not persuasive. Zhou explicitly teaches imaging depths of at least 1 cm. See, for example, section 3.1 describing an imaging depth of ~30 mm, FIG. 2 showing a plurality of signals from depths of at least 1 cm, and FIG. 3, showing an imaging depth substantially deeper than 1 cm in tape (the last bright line near the bottom of FIG. 3a is about one and a quarter cm deeper than the first bright line near the top, based on a measurement from FIG. 3b of about 0.057 cm distance between adjacent lines and accounting for the difference in magnification between FIG. 3a and 3b). Note that nothing in the claim language suggests an interpretation incompatible with these signal depth ranges taught by Zhou.
Applicant’s third argument is that Zhou’s optical splitter that indiscriminately splits the signal into 4 or 8 paths does not render obvious a multiplexer that selects a specific path, however, this argument is not persuasive. Nothing in the claims as actually written requires selecting the optical path discriminately, nor provides any criteria for which optical path to select, nor recites any consequences of how the selected path might be treated differently from non-selected optical paths.
Applicant’s fourth argument is that Zhou does not teach any reliable information concerning investigation of a tissue sample, however, this argument is not persuasive. In particular, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “investigation in tissue samples”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Further, it is noted that Zhou discloses an axial resolution measured in tissue (~8.3 µm, according to section 3.1), and that a Drosophila larva comprises several tissues, though the rejections of claims as currently amended do not require reliance on these facts.
Since the independent claims are not found allowable, the dependent claims are not automatically allowable.
The existing grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 are maintained.
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) 14-16, 19, 24-26, 29, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (Non-Patent Literature “Space-division multiplexing optical coherence tomography”).
Regarding claim 14, Zhou teaches a method of performing optical coherence tomography, comprising: generating a beam of coherent light (FIG. 1a, Swept-source laser) having a coherence length more than 1 cm (section 2.1, paragraph 2, a coherence length of over 50 mm is more than 1 cm) and a wavelength periodically swept within a wavelength range (section 2.1, paragraph 2, 100 nm) around a central wavelength (section 2.1, paragraph 2, 1310 nm) at a wavelength sweeping frequency (section 2.1, paragraph 2, frequency of 100,000 Hz);
coupling the beam of coherent light into (FIG. 1a, the 95% side of the 5/95 optical coupler) an optical interferometer (FIG. 1a, the optical components downstream of the 95% exit of the 5/95 optical coupler) comprising a reference arm (FIG. 1a, the optical path downstream of the 10% exit of the 10/90 optical coupler) and a sample arm (FIG. 1a, the optical path downstream of the 90% exit of the 10/90 optical coupler), wherein the sample arm comprises:
an optical multiplexer (FIG. 1a, optical splitter); and
a plurality of optical paths with a variation of lengths within a range less than the coherence length (section 2.1, paragraph 2, a length difference of 2.5 mm between each closest-pair of optical paths results in a difference of 17.5 mm between the longest and shortest, which is less than the over 50 mm coherence length);
selecting an optical path of the plurality of optical paths using the optical multiplexer (FIG. 1a, the shortest path, for example. Note that there is no difference claimed in how the selected optical path is treated in this application, compared to how the other optical paths are claimed to be treated, nor any criterion to use in selecting that path.);
processing a plurality of output signals of the optical interferometer, wherein each of the plurality of output signals corresponds to one of the plurality of optical paths (FIG. 1c);
acquiring data from the plurality of output signals at a data sampling rate (section 2.1, paragraph 2, sampling rate of 1.2 GS/s); and
processing the data and generating a plurality of signals from the data, wherein the plurality of signals have depth ranges of at least 1 cm (section 2.1, paragraph 2, an imaging range of 35 mm is at least 1 cm), and wherein each of the plurality of signals corresponds to one of the plurality of optical paths (FIG. 3b).
Regarding claim 15, Zhou teaches the method of claim 14 (as described above), further comprising: detecting one or more reference features in the plurality of signals (FIG. 3a, the parts of the image with higher contrast, labeled 1-8); and
cropping regions of interest in the plurality of signals, based on the one or more reference features (FIG. 3b).
Regarding claim 16, Zhou teaches the method of claim 14 (as described above), wherein the beam of coherent light is generated by a tunable vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) (section 2.1, paragraph 2) or an akinetic swept source.
Regarding claim 19, Zhou teaches the method of claim 14 (as described above), wherein the wavelength sweeping frequency is between 20 and 100 kHz (section 2.1, paragraph 2, a frequency of 100,000 Hz (=100 kHz) is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “between 20 and 100 kHz”).
Regarding claim 24, Zhou teaches a system of optical coherence tomography, comprising: a light source configured to output a beam of coherent light (FIG. 1a, Swept-source laser) having a coherence length more than 1 cm (section 2.1, paragraph 2, a coherence length of over 50 mm is more than 1 cm) and a wavelength periodically swept within a wavelength range (section 2.1, paragraph 2, 100 nm) around a central wavelength (section 2.1, paragraph 2, 1310 nm) at a wavelength sweeping frequency (section 2.1, paragraph 2, frequency of 100,000 Hz);
an optical interferometer (FIG. 1a, the optical components downstream of the 95% exit of the 5/95 optical coupler), comprising:
an input coupled to the beam of coherent light (FIG. 1a, the 10/90 optical coupler);
an output (FIG. 1a, 50/50 optical coupler);
a reference arm (FIG. 1a, the optical path downstream of the 10% exit of the 10/90 optical coupler); and
a sample arm (FIG. 1a, the optical path downstream of the 90% exit of the 10/90 optical coupler), comprising a plurality of optical paths with a variation of lengths within a range less than the coherence length (section 2.1, paragraph 2, a length difference of 2.5 mm between each closest-pair of optical paths results in a difference of 17.5 mm between the longest and shortest, which is less than the over 50 mm coherence length);
an optical multiplexer configured to select one of the plurality of optical paths (FIG. 1a, optical splitter);
an optical detector coupled to the output (FIG. 1a, balanced detector);
a data acquisition unit configured to acquire data from the optical detector at a data sampling rate (section 2.1, paragraph 2, sampling rate of 1.2 GS/s); and
a data processing unit (FIG. 1a, computer) configured to generate a plurality of signals from the data, wherein the plurality of signals have depth ranges of at least 1 cm, and wherein each of the plurality of signals corresponds to one of the plurality of optical paths (section 2.1, paragraph 2, an imaging range of 35 mm is at least 1 cm).
Regarding claim 25, Zhou teaches the system of claim 24 (as described above), wherein the data processing unit is further configured to: detect one or more reference features in the plurality of signals (FIG. 3a, the parts of the image with higher contrast, labeled 1-8); and
crop regions of interest in the plurality of signals, based on the one or more reference features (FIG. 3b).
Regarding claim 26, Zhou teaches the system of claim 24 (as described above), wherein the light source is a tunable VCSEL (section 2.1, paragraph 2) or an akinetic swept source.
Regarding claim 29, Zhou teaches the system of claim 24 (as described above), wherein the wavelength sweeping frequency is between 20 and 100 kHz (section 2.1, paragraph 2, a frequency of 100,000 Hz (=100 kHz) is within the broadest reasonable interpretation of “between 20 and 100 kHz”).
Regarding claim 31, Zhou teaches the system of claim 24 (as described above), wherein each of the plurality of optical paths comprises an optical fiber (FIG. 1a, fiber array).
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:
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.
Claim(s) 17-18, 20-22, 27-28, 30, and 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (Non-Patent Literature “Space-division multiplexing optical coherence tomography”).
Regarding claim 17, Zhou teaches the method of claim 14 (as described above), wherein:
the central wavelength of the beam of coherent light is between 1000 nm and 1600 nm (section 2.1, paragraph 2, 1310 nm).
While Zhou teaches a wavelength range of 100 nm (section 2.1, paragraph 2) rather than explicitly teaching that the wavelength range swept around the central wavelength is between 30 nm and 70 nm, a wavelength range of 100 nm centered at 1310 nm encompasses a wavelength range of 30 to 70 nm centered at 1310 nm. A tunable VCSEL that can sweep a range of 100 nm can be used to take measurements using a narrower sweep range.
Additionally, Zhou teaches that improving axial scan rate of this kind of device can come at the cost of reduced sweep range, which reduces axial resolution, but does not result in a nonfunctioning device. Depending on the speed and resolution demands of a particular application, routine optimization may find a balance between axial scan rate and wavelength sweep range that falls within the claimed range.
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 optical coherence tomography method of Zhou through routine optimization by increasing the axial scan rate to allow for faster imaging, at the cost of reduced axial resolution due to reducing the wavelength sweep range to a value between 30 nm and 70 nm, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 18, Zhou teaches the method of claim 14 (as described above), wherein: the central wavelength of the beam of coherent light is 1310 nm (section 2.1, paragraph 2).
While Zhou teaches a wavelength range of 100 nm (section 2.1, paragraph 2) rather than explicitly teaching that the wavelength range swept around the central wavelength is 55 nm, a wavelength range of 100 nm centered at 1310 nm encompasses a wavelength range of 55 nm centered at 1310 nm. A tunable VCSEL that can sweep a range of 100 nm can be used to take measurements using a narrower sweep range.
Additionally, Zhou teaches that improving axial scan rate of this kind of device can come at the cost of reduced sweep range (section 1, paragraph 1), which reduces axial resolution, but does not result in a nonfunctioning device. Depending on the speed and resolution demands of a particular application, routine optimization may find a balance between axial scan rate and wavelength sweep range that falls within the claimed range.
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 optical coherence tomography method of Zhou through routine optimization by increasing the axial scan rate to allow for faster imaging, at the cost of reduced axial resolution due to reducing the wavelength sweep range to a value between 55 nm, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Zhou teaches the method of claim 14 (as described above).
While Zhou teaches a wavelength sweeping frequency of 100 kHz (section 2.1, paragraph 2) rather than a wavelength sweeping frequency of 50 kHz, Zhou does teach a motivation for slowing down the frequency of the wavelength sweeps, that increasing dwell time allows for increasing image sensitivity and number of points per A-scan, improving axial resolution. Also note that a tunable VCSEL that can sweep at 100 kHz, can sweep at 50 kHz.
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 optical coherence tomography method of Zhou through routine optimization to improve the image sensitivity and axial resolution by reducing the sweep frequency by a factor of two, down to 50 kHz, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 21, Zhou teaches the method of claim 14 (as described above), wherein processing the plurality of output signals of the optical interferometer comprises measuring and amplifying the plurality of output signals within a bandwidth (FIG. 1a, balanced detector attached to the 50/50 optical coupler).
While Zhou teaches a data acquisition rate of 1.2 GS/s (giga samples per second, equivalent to GHz in this context) rather than a rate of 100 MHz, Zhou does teach slowing down the data acquisition rate and does use a data acquisition card capable of slowing down (section 4, final paragraph). Zhou slows the data acquisition rate from a supported 1.8 GS/s down to 1.2 GS/s to accommodate the maximum rate that data could be transferred to and stored on the computer. Slowing down the data acquisition rate further, for example, to 100 MHz, to accommodate use with less expensive computer hardware or increase flexibility of data transfer methods.
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 optical coherence tomography method of Zhou by throttling the data acquisition card further in order to allow the device to run on less expensive computing hardware, decreasing the cost of the device or expanding the accessibility of the device to potential users with less expensive computers.
Regarding claim 22, Zhou teaches the method of claim 14 (as described above).
While Zhou teaches a data acquisition rate of 1.2 GS/s (giga samples per second, equivalent to GHz in this context) rather than that the data sampling rate is between 0 and 400 MHz, Zhou does teach slowing down the data acquisition rate and does use a data acquisition card capable of slowing down (section 4, final paragraph). Zhou slows the data acquisition rate from a supported 1.8 GS/s down to 1.2 GS/s to accommodate the maximum rate that data could be transferred to and stored on the computer. Slowing down the data acquisition rate further, for example, to between 0 and 400 MHz, to accommodate use with less expensive computer hardware or increase flexibility of data transfer methods.
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 optical coherence tomography method of Zhou by throttling the data acquisition card further in order to allow the device to run on less expensive computing hardware, decreasing the cost of the device or expanding the accessibility of the device to potential users with less expensive computers.
Regarding claim 27, Zhou teaches the system of claim 24 (as described above), wherein: the central wavelength of the beam of coherent light is between 1000 nm and 1600 nm (section 2.1, paragraph 2, 1310 nm).
While Zhou teaches a wavelength range of 100 nm rather than explicitly teaching that the wavelength range swept around the central wavelength is between 30 nm and 70 nm, a wavelength range of 100 nm centered at 1310 nm encompasses a wavelength range of 30 to 70 nm centered at 1310 nm. A tunable VCSEL that can sweep a range of 100 nm can be used to take measurements using a narrower sweep range.
Additionally, Zhou teaches that improving axial scan rate of this kind of device can come at the cost of reduced sweep range, which reduces axial resolution, but does not result in a nonfunctioning device. Depending on the speed and resolution demands of a particular optimization, routine optimization may find a balance between axial scan rate and wavelength sweep range that falls within the claimed range.
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 optical coherence tomography system of Zhou through routine optimization by increasing the axial scan rate to allow for faster imaging, at the cost of reduced axial resolution due to reducing the wavelength sweep range to a value between 30 nm and 70 nm, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 28, Zhou teaches the system of claim 24 (as described above), wherein: the central wavelength of the beam of coherent light is 1310 nm (section 2.1, paragraph 2).
While Zhou teaches a wavelength range of 100 nm (section 2.1, paragraph 2) rather than explicitly teaching that the wavelength range swept around the central wavelength is 55 nm, a wavelength range of 100 nm centered at 1310 nm encompasses a wavelength range of 55 nm centered at 1310 nm. A tunable VCSEL that can sweep a range of 100 nm can be used to take measurements using a narrower sweep range.
Additionally, Zhou teaches that improving axial scan rate of this kind of device can come at the cost of reduced sweep range (section 1, paragraph 1), which reduces axial resolution, but does not result in a nonfunctioning device. Depending on the speed and resolution demands of a particular optimization, routine optimization may find a balance between axial scan rate and wavelength sweep range that falls within the claimed range.
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 optical coherence tomography system of Zhou through routine optimization by increasing the axial scan rate to allow for faster imaging, at the cost of reduced axial resolution due to reducing the wavelength sweep range to a value between 55 nm, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 30, Zhou teaches the system of claim 24 (as described above).
While Zhou teaches a wavelength sweeping frequency of 100 kHz (section 2.1, paragraph 2) rather than a wavelength sweeping frequency of 50 kHz, Zhou does teach a motivation for slowing down the frequency of the wavelength sweeps, that increasing dwell time allows for increasing image sensitivity and number of points per A-scan, improving axial resolution. Also note that a tunable VCSEL that can sweep at 100 kHz, can sweep at 50 kHz.
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 optical coherence tomography system of Zhou through routine optimization to improve the image sensitivity and axial resolution by reducing the sweep frequency by a factor of two, down to 50 kHz, with predictable results and a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 32, Zhou teaches the system of claim 24 (as described above).
While Zhou teaches a data acquisition rate of 1.2 GS/s (giga samples per second, equivalent to GHz in this context) rather than that the data sampling rate is between 0 and 400 MHz, Zhou does teach slowing down the data acquisition rate and does use a data acquisition card capable of slowing down (section 4, final paragraph). Zhou slows the data acquisition rate from a supported 1.8 GS/s down to 1.2 GS/s to accommodate the maximum rate that data could be transferred to and stored on the computer. Slowing down the data acquisition rate further, for example, to between 0 and 400 MHz, to accommodate use with less expensive computer hardware or increase flexibility of data transfer methods.
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 optical coherence tomography system of Zhou by throttling the data acquisition card further in order to allow the device to run on less expensive computing hardware, decreasing the cost of the device or expanding the accessibility of the device to potential users with less expensive computers.
Regarding claim 33, Zhou teaches the system of claim 24 (as described above), wherein the optical detector is configured to measure and amplify an output signal of the output within a bandwidth (FIG. 1a, balanced detector attached to the 50/50 optical coupler).
While Zhou teaches a data acquisition rate of 1.2 GS/s (giga samples per second, equivalent to GHz in this context) rather than a rate of 100 MHz, Zhou does teach slowing down the data acquisition rate and does use a data acquisition card capable of slowing down (section 4, final paragraph). Zhou slows the data acquisition rate from a supported 1.8 GS/s down to 1.2 GS/s to accommodate the maximum rate that data could be transferred to and stored on the computer. Slowing down the data acquisition rate further, for example, to 100 MHz, to accommodate use with less expensive computer hardware or increase flexibility of data transfer methods.
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 optical coherence tomography system of Zhou by throttling the data acquisition card further in order to allow the device to run on less expensive computing hardware, decreasing the cost of the device or expanding the accessibility of the device to potential users with less expensive computers.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (Non-Patent Literature “Space-division multiplexing optical coherence tomography”) in view of Thorlabs (Non-Patent Literature “MEMS-VCSEL Swept-Wavelength Laser Sources”).
Regarding claim 23, Zhou teaches the method of claim 14 (as described above).
Zhao does not explicitly teach that the coherence length of the beam of coherent light is 10 cm.
In the same field of endeavor of swept lasers, Thorlabs does teach a swept laser source where the coherence length of the beam of coherent light is 10 cm (page 1, table Common Specifications). An increased coherence length enables greater optical path length differences in interferometry techniques, such as optical coherence tomography.
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 optical coherence tomography method of Zhou using a swept source laser with a longer coherence length, like those of Thorlabs in order to allow for greater differences in optical path length between the reference arm and sample arms, which would allow for greater scan depths.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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, Tarifur 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.
/PAUL SCHNASE/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877