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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of the embodiment of fig 6A, reading on claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-16, and 19 in the reply filed on 5/19/2026 is acknowledged, but claim 11 will also be withdrawn as not directed to the elected species, see detail reasons below. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the species are not mutually exclusive.
In an interview with Chris Corbet on 8/11/2026 and subsequent follow up, applicant proposed an amended grouping of species as follows:
Group 1: FIGS. 6A, 6B, 6C. All of these share the same core architecture (fiber 602, substrate 605, WSRs 604a/604b, diffractive lens 607) and are directed to extending depth of focus. They differ only in the type of focusing element (PSDL, super-dispersive lens, axicon), which are largely interchangeable components within the same system.
Group 2: FIGS. 2A, 2B. These both describe multi-spectral multi-zoom architectures differing in the collimating lens type.
Group 3: FIGS. 4A–4E. These are polarization-resolved imaging variants sharing PSGs, PSRs, and absorptive polarizers.
Group 4: FIGS. 5A–5D. These are described in the specification as "fusions" of the FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 embodiments.
Group 5: FIGS. 7A–7C. These are reconfigurable focal length systems using LC-based components on the same substrate platform.
Group 6: FIGS. 1A–1D. These are endoscopic catheter embodiments.
The proposed groups, though conceptually aggregated, are still considered to contain mutually exclusive species, e.g. fig 4A and 4B shows two exclusive configurations of element 406, among other structural distinctions, where in the embodiment of fig 4A, the element is configured by two separate elements, 406a and 406b, while in the embodiment of fig 4B, it is a single element. Other structural distinctions exist amongst the species which appear to make the originally cited list of species in the earlier Requirement for Restriction/Election correct and valid, and therefore will be maintained.
Additionally, the elected embodiment of fig 6A is not considered to read on claim 11. The claimed “at least three light paths” in claim 11 are interpreted to be light paths perpendicular to the axial direction used for imaging, e.g. as seen in fig 6C. The embodiment of fig 6A shows only two perpendicular light paths and is therefore considered to be a nonelected species and will be withdrawn. In applicant’s follow up to the interview, an explanation of claim 11 was presented as “any two out of the three, but not necessarily all three given the language presently in the claims”, but it is unclear how this applies since the claim explicitly cites “at least three light paths” where as the elected fig 6A is considered to only contain two outgoing light paths. As such, along with applicant amenable to withdrawing claim 11, it will be withdrawn.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Therefore, the elected embodiment of fig 6A is considered to read on claims: 1-5, 7-9, 12-16, and 19.
Claims 6, 10, 11, 17, 18, and 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 5/19/2026. Note: applicant left out claim 20 in the list of withdrawn claims, but will be withdrawn as not being directed to the elected species.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112b
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 1 and dependent claims 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 recites “the optical component directing the light from the fiber into at least two light paths, wherein each of the two light paths is re-directed to a transverse direction”. In light of the elected species (fig 6A), it is unclear what is defined as the “two light paths” considering there has been only one single “optical component” claimed presumed to be 604a, i.e. “an optical component” . Considering only a single optical component (WSR 604a), this element splits the fiber light rays 608 into perpendicular rays, one directed downward into the first PSDL 616a and the second ray in the same axial direction as the incoming rays 608 toward the second WSR 604b. This does not appear to be the interpretation that the claim adheres to later in the recitation since it states, “each of the two light paths is re-directed to a transverse direction”. This latter claim requirement appears to interpret the two rays as the two downward directed rays emanating from 616a and 616b, which is inconsistent with the claim interpretation of “an optical component” as a single element. Since the claim has not further defined the scope of the optical component, these claim limitations are considered indefinite.
Additionally, “re-directed to a transverse direction” is considered indefinite since it is unclear to which direction it is transverse since there are multiple rays and directions. Applicant should specify, e.g. “transverse to the axial direction” or as applicant has done in claim 3, i.e. “in a transverse direction away from the first surface”.
Indefiniteness will be interpreted as provided in the rejection.
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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Ito 20160299170.
Ito discloses for claim 1, “An optical system for an endoscope comprising:
a substrate (housing 469; fig 11; 0265 describes the housing as accommodating the optical elements) having a first surface and a second surface, wherein at least one of the surfaces is oriented substantially parallel to an axial direction (fig 11 shows multiples surfaces where at least two are parallel to an optical fiber’s axial direction) of a fiber (fiber 140 of the superseding configuration in fig 2; 0109) configured to deliver light propagating along the axial direction; and
an optical component (first and second optical path changing elements 463 and 464; fig 11; 0266) supported by the substrate (housing 469 accommodates), the optical component directing the light from the fiber into at least two light paths (light paths considered to be the light paths that are perpendicular to the axial fiber light path, i.e. exiting 465 and 466 onto the target), wherein each of the two light paths is re-directed to a transverse direction and focused to a different focus spot located to a side of the optical system (fig 11)”.
Ito discloses for claim 2, “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the optical component comprises an optical reflector (first optical path changing element 463; fig 11; 0266), light exits the fiber propagating along the axial direction and is directed by the optical reflector towards the substrate and propagates through the substrate to the corresponding focus spot (fig 11 shows the fiber light path along the axial direction of the fiber, then is directed perpendicularly through the substrate to the focusing spot; the change in light path is considered also toward the substrate, i.e. toward the housing, since the light is already within the substrate/housing, any directional change within the housing is considered “towards”)”.
Ito discloses for claim 5, “The optical system of claim 1, further comprising:
a diffractive lens (first objective lens 465 is described at 0265 as the same as objective lens 165 of the superseding embodiment in fig 2; at 0170 describes objective lens 165 as a diffractive optical element) positioned flat on one of the surfaces, wherein one of the light paths exits the substrate in a transverse direction and the diffractive lens focuses that light path to the corresponding focus spot (fig 11)”.
Ito discloses for claim 7, “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the different focus spots have different focal lengths (0161 describes variable and therefore different focal distances)”.
Ito discloses for claim 8, “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the different focus spots have different depths of focus (0161 describes variable and therefore different focal depths)”.
Ito discloses for claim 12, “An endoscopic catheter comprising:
an optical fiber (641; fig 16; 0311) having two ends;
a fiber connector (tube 661; fig 16; 0311) connected to one end of the optical fiber; and
an optical system (fig 11) connected to an opposite end of the optical fiber; wherein the optical system comprises:
a substrate (housing 469; fig 11; 0265 describes the housing as accommodating the optical elements) having a first surface and a second surface, wherein at least one of the surfaces is oriented substantially parallel to an axial direction (fig 11 shows multiples surfaces where at least two are parallel to an optical fiber’s axial direction) of the optical fiber and the optical fiber delivers light to the optical system propagating along the axial direction (fig 11); and
an optical component (first and second optical path changing elements 463 and 464; fig 11; 0266) supported by the substrate (housing 469 accommodates), the optical component directing the light from the optical fiber into at least two light paths (light paths considered to be the light paths that are perpendicular to the axial fiber light path, i.e. exiting 465 and 466 onto the target), wherein each of the two light paths is re-directed to a transverse direction and focused to a different focus spot located to a side of the optical system (fig 11)”.
Ito discloses for claim 15, “The endoscopic catheter of claim 12, wherein the optical system also collects light scattered from tissue located at the focus spots via propagation along a reverse direction through the two light paths (fig 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) 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mir 20070276211 .
Ito does not disclose for claim 3, “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the optical component is mounted on the first surface and extends in a transverse direction away from the first surface”. Mir teaches in the same field of endeavor, a transparent substrate 46 with mounted optical elements, including imaging lens 40, reflector 42, fig 3A. Aside from the housing disclosed, Ito does not describe the specific structure holding and supporting the optical elements, beyond the “accommodating” that it describes. As such, Ito merely lacks disclosing the nature of the support/holding structure. Since Ito fails to disclose the nature of the substrate, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable configuration known in the art, including the one taught by Mir to achieve the predictable result of a substrate to hold and support optical elements.
Modified Ito discloses for claim 4, “The optical system of claim 3, wherein the optical component comprises a wavelength-selective reflector (Ito: fig 2, 11) mounted at an angle relative to the first surface (Mir: fig 3A)”.
Claim(s) 9, 16, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tearney 20020122246 .
Ito does not disclose for claim 9, “The optical system of claim 1, wherein the two light paths comprise two different spectral channels”. Tearney teaches in the same field of endeavor, imaging using multispectral illumination and processing of multispectral light using a grating to spatially disperse light into different spectral channels (fig 1; 0036). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of Tearney into the invention of Ito in order to configure the system, e.g. as claimed because it allows spectrally encoded imaging of “a variety of tissues and organs either integrated with standard endoscopes or as stand-alone devices (0045)”.
Modified Ito discloses for claim 16 (as provided in claim 9), “The endoscopic catheter of claim 12, further comprising:
a controller, wherein the optical component is wavelength-sensitive or wavelength-selective (Tearney: fig 1; 0036) and the controller adjusts a wavelength composition of the light delivered by the fiber (Ito: 0111 describes wavelength selective light source)”.
Modified Ito discloses for claim 19, (as provided in claim 9), “The endoscopic catheter of claim 12, wherein the two light paths comprise two different spectral channels (Tearney: fig 1 shows the light split into different paths; 0036)”.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Vertikov 20160374562.
Ito does not disclose for claim 13, “The endoscopic catheter of claim 12, further comprising: a ferrule that connects the optical system to the optical fiber; and a torque coil that rotates the optical system”. Vertikov teaches in the same field of endeavor, a ferrule 68 that hold an optical fiber 0081 and a torque coil that rotates an optical system 0182. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the modification of 20160374562 into the invention of Ito in order to configure the catheter e.g. as claimed because it allows rotation of the imaging field while allowing for durable flexibility and transmission of torque between the coil and the optical system (0061).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ito as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Mathieu 20090023999.
Ito does not disclose for claim 14, “The endoscopic catheter of claim 12, wherein the optical system has a cross-section of not more than 1.5 mm x 1.5 mm and a length of not more than 5 mm”. Ito does not specify the dimensions of the scanning head. Mathieu teaches in the same field of endeavor, a laser scanning head with a diameter within the claimed range, i.e. a few mm 0094 and comparable length (fig 2) for the purpose of miniaturization. Since Ito fails to disclose the scanning head dimensions it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used any suitable configuration known in the art, including the one taught by Mathieu to achieve the predictable result of configuring a miniature scanning head.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAE K WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-0837. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-2:30p, 6p-9p.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571) 272-4963. 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.
/Jae Woo/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
8/20/26
Prosecution Insights