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 .
Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 3-2-2026 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.
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) 1, 5, 8, & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margallo Balbàs et al (PGPub 2017/0023350) (Balbas) in view of Suni (US PAT 10,790,909) (Suni).
Regarding Claims 1, 8, & 9, Balbas discloses an optical coherence tomography imaging apparatus and method (Fig. 2) comprising:
emit light from a wavelength-swept laser light source (202, Paragraph 48);
an amplifier that produces an amplified light beam (Paragraph 72);
a first beam splitter (206) configured to split the light emitted from the wavelength-swept laser light source into a plurality of light beams (Paragraph 49);
a plurality of units (208_1 Thru 208_N), wherein each of the plurality of units comprises:
at least a second beam splitter (216_1 thru 216_N) that generates an object light and a reference light by splitting at least the amplified light beam (Paragraph 55);
a scanner (212_1 Thru 212_N) that applies the object light to a measurement target;
a signal processor that generates tomographic information based on an intensity of an interference light corresponding to interference of the object light scattered by the measurement target and the reference light (Paragraph 56); The fact that image quality is a concern implies that a tomographic image is being produced and thus there is some form of information generation unit that generates tomographic information on the basis of the electrical signal output by the detector;
Balbas fails to explicitly disclose at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions; and each of the plurality of units includes an optical amplifier that amplifies a light beam of the plurality of light beams to produce an amplified light beam;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Balbas with at least one memory that is configured to store instructions; and at least one processor that is configured to execute the instructions because computers used to automate an optical measurement apparatus and process data collected by an optical measurement apparatus with a memory for storing that programming are commonplace and offer such advantages as automation of an optical detection process thus speeding it up and faster processing of the data than could be done by your average user.
Balbas still fails to explicitly disclose each of the plurality of units includes an optical amplifier that amplifies a light beam of the plurality of light beams to produce an amplified light beam;
However, Suni discloses having multiple measurement arms (Fig. 2) each of which contain its own amplifier (225, Column 6, lines 33-40 & 54-56);
Thus, it would be obvious to have each of the plurality of units includes an optical amplifier that amplifies a light beam of the plurality of light beams to produce an amplified light beam as claimed in light of the disclosure of Suni;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Balbas with each of the plurality of units includes an optical amplifier that amplifies a light beam of the plurality of light beams to produce an amplified light beam because as Suni discloses (Column 4, lines 29-33) in a multi-channel configuration it is desirable to put an amplifier as far downstream as possible to null loses that occur downstream (from optical components) and thus this would improve the signal-to-noise ratio of the measurement.
Regarding Claim 5, Balbas discloses the aforementioned. Further, Balbas discloses wherein the first beam splitter, at least the second beam splitter, and the signal processor, are configured as one aggregation unit that is shared among the plurality of units (See fig. 2). The meaning of aggregation is just a “cluster of things” which is very broad and vague how they are clustered. Additionally, the word shared can mean multiple things i.e. each unit has one of these, or each unit uses the same one. Either way under a broadest reasonable interpretation since they’re all present in some form in the apparatus this limitation is met.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margallo Balbàs in view of Suni and further in view of Kakuma (PGPub 2020/0113440) (Kakuma).
Regarding Claim 4, Balbas as modified by Suni discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to configure the first beam splitter to time-split the light emitted from the wavelength- swept laser light source into the plurality of lights;
However, Kakuma discloses an optical coherence tomographer (Fig. 3) with an optical distributor (4, Figs. 3, 5A, & 5B) wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to configure the first beam splitter to time-split the light emitted from the wavelength- swept laser light source into the plurality of lights (Paragraphs 98 & 99);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Balbas as modified by Suni with disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to configure the first beam splitter to time-split the light emitted from the wavelength- swept laser light source into the plurality of lights because time-division multiplexing the light to different scanners is functionally equivalent to the time delay system Balbas uses for preventing crosstalk between the different interferometers.
Claim(s) 6 & 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Margallo Balbàs in view of Suni and further in view of Iddan et al (PGPub 2017/0234675) (Iddan) and still further in view of Durduran et al (PGPub 20200141798) (Durduran).
Regarding Claims 6 & 7, Balbas as modified by Suni discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: emit a first light pulse and a second light pulse from the wavelength-swept laser light source, and configure the first beam splitter to split a light obtained by coupling the first light pulse and the second light pulse into the plurality of lights, and each of the plurality of units further includes a splitter circuit that separates the plurality of light beams into a third light pulse and a fourth light pulse, that outputs the third light pulse as a light for generating the object light and the reference light, and that outputs the fourth light pulse as a trigger signal that is a trigger for the signal processor to generate the tomographic information;
However, Iddan teaches and OCT system that uses a light source that emits multiple light pulses of different frequencies (Fig. 7A & 7B, Paragraphs 133-134);
Thus, in combination with Balbas the limitations, “emit a first light pulse and a second light pulse from the wavelength-swept laser light source, and configure the first beam splitter to split a light obtained by coupling the first light pulse and the second light pulse into the plurality of lights, and each of the plurality of units further includes a splitter circuit that separates the plurality of light beams into a third light pulse and a fourth light pulse,” would be met since in combination it would be obvious to send each of the different frequency pulses to a separate unit;
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Balbas with emit a first light pulse and a second light pulse from the wavelength-swept laser light source, and configure the first beam splitter to split a light obtained by coupling the first light pulse and the second light pulse into the plurality of lights, and each of the plurality of units further includes a splitter circuit that separates the plurality of light beams into a third light pulse and a fourth light pulse because using multiple pulses of different frequencies allows for the scanning of different depths within a sample without crosstalk;
Balbas as modified by Iddan still fails to explicitly disclose a splitter circuit that separates the plurality of light beams into a third light pulse and a fourth light pulse, that outputs the third light pulse as a light for generating the object light and the reference light, and that outputs the fourth light pulse as a trigger signal that is a trigger for the signal processor to generate the tomographic information;
However, Durduran teaches an optical detection system wherein:
each of the plurality of units further includes a separation unit (Fig. 1, beamsplitter shown at (2)) that separates the plurality of lights outputted from the branching unit into the first light pulse and the second light pulse, that outputs the first light pulse as a light for generating the object light and the reference light, and that outputs the second light pulse as a trigger signal that is a trigger for the signal generation unit to generate the tomographic information (Paragraph 34);
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill at the time the invention was filed to modify Balbas as modified by Iddan with a splitter circuit that separates the plurality of light beams into a third light pulse and a fourth light pulse, that outputs the third light pulse as a light for generating the object light and the reference light, and that outputs the fourth light pulse as a trigger signal that is a trigger for the signal processor to generate the tomographic information because a trigger signal can be used to synchronize the time of emission of the pulse with the time of detection thus improving the accuracy of the detection and prevent noise from other sources.
The limitation, “wherein each of the plurality of units further includes a trigger circuit that generates a trigger signal that triggers the signal processor to generate the tomographic information, based on a power of the object light and performs photoelectric conversion,” from claim 7 is also met by the combination of Balbas with Durduran with the same motivation for combining.
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 JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 June 4, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights