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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 04/10/2026 is acknowledged and has been accepted by the Examiner. Claims 1-6 and 15-18 are pending in this application and have been examined. Claims 7-14, 19, and 20 are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US20080062429A1) in view of Alphonse (US20100053632A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches an optical coherence tomography scanner for imaging a sample (90, Fig. 13B), the optical coherence tomography scanner comprising:
a) a wavelength-tunable light source configured to generate scanning light having a range of wavelengths (80a, Fig. 13B; paragraph [0130] discloses the light source can be a tunable laser diode);
b) a scanning probe (102, Fig. 15B) having a scanning head (104, Fig. 15B) and one or more optical channels that convey light to and from the scanning head, each of the one or more optical channels comprising (Fig. 15B depicts one optical channel):
(i) a sample arm comprising optical fibers for conveying the scanning light to the sample (76, Fig. 13B) and conveying scattered and back-reflected light from the sample to a detector (paragraph [0130] discloses the fiber carries the light to the sample and back to the detector, 80f),
(ii) a reference arm comprising optical fibers for conveying reference light from the wavelength-tunable light source (80e, Fig. 13B),
(iii) an optical fiber or fiber system comprising an optical path distance for the sample arm or the reference arm (paragraph [0130] discloses an optical fiber system that makes up the sample and reference arms, which inherently has an optical path distance),
(iv) a detector that generates an output signal according to combined light from the sample arm and the conveyed reference light (80f, Fig. 13B); and
c) a digitizer that is energizable to generate digital data according to the detector output signal ('signal processing electronics' - 80g, Fig. 13B) and to communicate the generated digital data to a computer for storage or display (paragraph [0130] discloses the output signal goes from the signal processing electronics to a control logic processor, 80h, Fig. 13B; paragraph [0143] discloses the control logic processor can be a computer workstation).
Liang fails to teach the optical fiber system has a fiber adapter configured to match an optical path distance between the sample arm and the reference arm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of interferometers, Alphonse teaches an interferometer with a fiber adapter to match optical path lengths of the sample and reference arms (paragraph [0085] discloses the use of a fiber stretch to change the length of the two arms; paragraph [0086] disclose the delays are adjustable to achieve a length matching if desired. Fig. 10F of the current application discloses the fiber adapter as a fiber stretcher).
The device of Liang is imaging tooth enamel, a biological tissue, and uses a mechanical scanner to change the path length of the interferometer arms (Liang: paragraphs [0130]-[0131]). Alphonse discloses that mechanical scanners to adjust the length of optical paths are slower and less ideal for biological tissue imaging compared to a fiber stretcher (Alphonse: paragraph [0049]). Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to combine the interferometer taught in Liang with the fiber stretcher as delay taught in Alphonse to better image biological tissue.
Regarding claim 15, Liang as modified by Alphonse teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the fiber adapter comprises at least one of an adjustable fiber adapter (Alphonse: paragraph [0085] discloses a fiber stretcher, which is an adjustable fiber adapter).
Claims 1-6 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US20080062429A1) in view of Murashima (US20160116683A1) as evidenced by Alphonse (US20100053632A1).
Regarding claim 1, Liang teaches an optical coherence tomography scanner for imaging a sample (90, Fig. 13B), the optical coherence tomography scanner comprising:
a) a wavelength-tunable light source configured to generate scanning light having a range of wavelengths (80a, Fig. 13B; paragraph [0130] discloses the light source can be a tunable laser diode);
b) a scanning probe (102, Fig. 15B) having a scanning head (104, Fig. 15B) and one or more optical channels that convey light to and from the scanning head, each of the one or more optical channels comprising (Fig. 15B depicts one optical channel):
(i) a sample arm comprising optical fibers for conveying the scanning light to the sample (76, Fig. 13B) and conveying scattered and back-reflected light from the sample to a detector (paragraph [0130] discloses the fiber carries the light to the sample and back to the detector, 80f),
(ii) a reference arm comprising optical fibers for conveying reference light from the wavelength-tunable light source (80e, Fig. 13B),
(iii) an optical fiber or fiber system comprising an optical path distance for the sample arm or the reference arm (paragraph [0130] discloses an optical fiber system that makes up the sample and reference arms, which inherently has an optical path distance),
(iv) a detector that generates an output signal according to combined light from the sample arm and the conveyed reference light (80f, Fig. 13B); and
c) a digitizer that is energizable to generate digital data according to the detector output signal ('signal processing electronics' - 80g, Fig. 13B) and to communicate the generated digital data to a computer for storage or display (paragraph [0130] discloses the output signal goes from the signal processing electronics to a control logic processor, 80h, Fig. 13B; paragraph [0143] discloses the control logic processor can be a computer workstation).
Liang fails to teach the optical fiber system has a fiber adapter configured to match an optical path distance between the sample arm and the reference arm.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical coherence tomography scanners, Murashima teaches an OCT system which utilizes a fiber adapter in the sample arm (31, Fig. 4; paragraph [0089] of the instant application's specification describes the fiber adapter as a ferrule with an embedded fiber segment. The ferrule assembly 31 taught in Murashima includes a ferrule 36 and an embedded fiber 35) to achieve a desired optical path length of the sample arm to observe interference (paragraph [0040]). Murashima does not explicitly disclose what this path length is, however Liang discloses that interference occurs when the optical path lengths between the sample or reference arms and the light source are equal (Liang: paragraph [0126]). Therefore, the examiner is interpreting the desired optical path distance of the sample arm in Murashima to be equal to a reference arm.
Liang uses mechanical scanning to change the path length of the arms (paragraphs [0130]-[0131]). However, Alphonse discloses that mechanical scanners are slower and less ideal for biological tissue imaging (paragraph [0049]), such as the tooth enamel Liang is imaging. Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the mechanical scanner taught in Liang with the fiber adapter which changes the path distance taught in Murashima in order to better image biological tissue.
Regarding claim 2, Liang as modified by Murashima teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the scanning head is configured for intraoral scanning (Liang: Fig. 16 is depicted as being used on a tooth, 20. This implies this embodiment is configured for intraoral scanning).
Regarding claim 3, Liang as modified by Murashima teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the sample arm, the reference arm, and the optical fiber or fiber system are housed within the scanning probe (Liang: Fig. 15B depicts the OCT system, 80, as part of the scanning probe, 102).
Regarding claim 4, Liang as modified by Murashima teaches the invention as explained above in claim 3, and further teaches the detector is housed within the scanning probe (Liang: the sensor, 68, is housed within the scanning probe, 102, in Fig. 15B).
Regarding claim 5, Liang as modified by Murashima teaches the invention as explained above in claim 3, and further teaches the scanning probe is in a housing (Liang: Fig. 16 depicts the housing the scanning probe, 102, is within) and the wavelength-tunable light source is housed within the housing (Liang: Fig. 15B depicts the OCT system within the scanning probe which is within the housing; paragraph [0130] discloses the light source of the OCT system can be a tunable laser diode).
Regarding claim 6, Liang as modified by Murashima teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the scanning probe is a hand-held probe (Liang: paragraph [0141] discloses the imaging system depicted in Fig. 16 is hand-held).
Regarding claim 15, Liang as modified by Murashima teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the fiber adapter comprises at least a ferrule (Murashima: 36, Fig. 4).
As explained above in claim 1, it person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the scanner taught in Liang with the fiber adapter comprising a ferrule taught in Murashima in order to better image biological tissue.
Regarding claim 16, Liang as modified by Murashima teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the fiber adapter comprises one or more optical fibers having specific optical path lengths (Murashima: 35, Fig. 4; paragraph [0040]).
As explained above in claim 1, it person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the scanner taught in Liang with the fiber adapter comprising an optical fiber taught in Murashima in order to better image biological tissue.
Regarding claim 17, Liang as modified by Murashima teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, and further teaches the fiber adapter comprises a ferrule (Murashima: 36, Fig. 4) having an embedded optical fiber segment (Murashima: 35, Fig. 4).
As explained above in claim 1, it person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date would find it obvious to combine the scanner taught in Liang with the fiber adapter comprising a ferrule and optical fiber segment taught in Murashima in order to better image biological tissue.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liang (US20080062429A1) in view of Murashima (US20160116683A1) as evidenced by Alphonse (US20100053632A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Larson (US20100098381A1).
Regarding claim 18, Liang as modified by Murashima teaches the invention as explained above in claim 1, but fails to teach the fiber adapter comprises two or more ferrules and a connected tube or sleeve.
However, in the same field of endeavor of fiber adapters, Larson teaches a connector comprising two ferrules (532 and 590, Fig. 25) and a sleeve (520, Fig. 22).
Larson discloses that when full contact occurs and the fibers are connected, this configuration transfers force to the sleeve rather than the ferrules (paragraph [0092]), therefore minimizing the risk of damage. Thus, it would be obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Liang as modified by Murashima with the fiber adapter taught in Larson in order to transfer contact force to the sleeve rather than the ferrules, minimizing the risk of damage.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Alexandria Mendoza whose telephone number is (571)272-5282. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur 11:00-8:00 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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA MENDOZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Michael A Lyons/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights