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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show the eye axial length measurement device 120, the server 140, and the viewer 150 are connected together through a network 130 ([0009]), The ophthalmic device 110 includes an SLO unit 18 ([0015]), and structure of the OCT device as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(b) because they are incomplete. The drawings do not show every feature of the invention specified in the claims (e.g., there are no illustrations in regard to the structure of the OCT device claimed in the instant application). 37 CFR 1.83(b) reads as follows:
When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f) and 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim limitation “[t]he OCT device of claim 7, wherein the processor further executes a step of generating a tomographic image based on the second corrected OCT signal” in Claim 8 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
With respect to Claim 8, “[t]he OCT device of claim 7, wherein the processor further executes a step of generating a tomographic image based on the second corrected OCT signal” recites purely functional terms without describing how the processor performs this function, invoking § 112(f). The as-filed specification and drawings disclose only box block diagrams identifying a generic processor (CPU 16A is an example of a "processor"; [0017] of as-filed specification dated 21 December 2023; see fig. 2 of the instant application). In apparatus claims, merely labeling a component as a processor and depicting it as a block does not constitute disclosure of sufficient structure for performing the claimed function. Since the as-filed specification provides no description nor support of the actual structural configuration of the OCT device and processor that enables generation of a tomographic image, the claim lacks corresponding disclosed structure. Thus, the as-filed specification fails to provide written description support identifying and clearly linking any specific structure, material, or acts of the OCT device to the claimed function, rendering Claim 8 to be indefinite.
Therefore, Claim 8 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2-4, 7-8, and 10-16 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.
With respect to Claims 2, 4, 7, 10 and 12-13, the sentences recite "dispersion of a specific amount is imparted to the reference light by a dispersion section provided to the reference optical system" in Claims 2, 7, and 10 and "wherein the peak portion is a portion having a width at half intensity value smaller than a specific value" in Claims 4, and 12-13 which seems to be ambiguous in definition. It is unclear how the phrases "specific amount" and "specific value" should be interpreted and it is unclear as to what the metes and bounds of the above claim limitations are and would be needed to meet the above claim limitations.
The claim limitations "dispersion of a specific amount is imparted to the reference light by a dispersion section provided to the reference optical system" and "wherein the peak portion is a portion having a width at half intensity value smaller than a specific value” fail to define what the “specific amount” and “specific value” are, how they are determined, and where they are disclosed. These limitations leave no objective boundary for the claims, for a person having ordinary skill in the art cannot determine the scope of the claimed light dispersion and peak portions with reasonable certainty. Since the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained, these claims are rendered indefinite under § 112(b).
For the prosecution on merits, examiner interprets the claimed subject matter described above as introducing optional elements, optional structural limitations, optional expressions, and optional functionality of an OCT signal processing method, OCT device, and non-transitory computer-readable medium.
Applicant should clarify the claim limitations as appropriate. Care should be taken during revision of the description and of any statements of problem or advantage, not to add subject-matter which extends beyond the content of the application (specification) as originally filed.
If the language of a claim, considered as a whole in light of the specification and given its broadest reasonable interpretation, is such that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would read it with more than one reasonable interpretation, then a rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, is appropriate. See MPEP 2173.05(a), MPEP 2143.03(I), and MPEP 2173.06.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kulkarni et al. US 20180360306 A1 (herein after "Kulkarni").
With respect to Claim 1, Kulkarni discloses an OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of a processor (processor 414; [0087]) performing processing on a detection signal (detector array 410 to produce a light spectrum, processor performs data analysis using specific algorithms on light spectrum; [0087] and [0106-107]) obtained by separating light (interferometric light is dispersed; [0085] and [0104]) emitted from a light source (light source 405; [0087]) into measurement light (sample arm 403; [0087] and [0100]) and reference light (reference arm 402; [0087] and [0100]), guiding the measurement light (sample arm 403; fig. 4) to an eye (of specimen 407; [0087]) to be examined using an object optical system (optical delivery unit 408 in sample arm 403 focusing light on the eye; [0097]), guiding the reference light (reference arm 402; fig. 4) to a reference optical system (fractional wave mirror comprising fiber optic mirror 417 placed at end of reference arm 402; [0123]), followed by photo-detecting interference light (interference signal via detector array 410; [0125]) resulting from measurement light (sample arm 403; fig. 4) reflected from the eye (of specimen 407; [0087]) to be examined interfering with the reference light (waves reflected back from sample arm 403 and reference arm 402 interfere at detector array 410; [0125]), the processing (data analysis and signal processing; [0107-109]) comprising:
generating an OCT signal (system generates A-scans of the eye; [0110]) by performing Fourier transformation (inverse Fourier transform of light spectrum is computed; [0108]) on the detection signal (detector array 410 produces light spectrum, processor performs data analysis using specific algorithms on light spectrum; [0087] and [0106-107]);
detecting a peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) in the OCT signal (system generates A-scans of the eye; [0110]); and
generating a first corrected OCT signal (resulting arrays that are reflectivity profiles/A-scans of signal processing performed using specific algorithms; [0109-110]) by removing (removing duplicate data and strong spikes; [0109]) the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) from the OCT signal (system generates A-scans of the eye; [0110]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02. See Claim 6 § 102(a)(1) rejection(s) in the present Office action.
With respect to Claim 2, Kulkarni discloses the OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of claim 1, wherein:
dispersion of a specific amount is imparted (increase/decrease path-length in interferometer by increasing/decreasing fiber-length, fiber stretcher 412 kept in reference arm 402; [0095]) to the reference light (reference arm 402; [0087] and [0100]) by a dispersion section (fiber stretcher 412; [0087]) provided to the reference optical system (fiber optic mirror 417 situated on tip of fiber stretcher 412; [0096]), and further comprising:
generating a first corrected detection signal (interferometric signal; [0103-104]) by performing inverse Fourier transformation (inverse Fourier transform of light spectrum is computed; [0103-108]) on the first corrected OCT signal (resulting arrays that are reflectivity profiles/A-scans of signal processing performed using specific algorithms; [0109-110]);
compensating the dispersion (increase/decrease path-length in interferometer by increasing/decreasing fiber-length, fiber stretcher 412 kept in reference arm 402; [0095] via fiber stretcher 412; [0087]) contained in the first corrected detection signal (interferometric signal; [0103-104]) and outputting a second corrected detection signal (recorded spectra; [0107]); and
generating a second corrected OCT signal (multiple A-scans acquired at various lateral locations; [0115]) in which the dispersion (increase/decrease path-length in interferometer by increasing/decreasing fiber-length, fiber stretcher 412 kept in reference arm 402; [0095] via fiber stretcher 412; [0087]) has been compensated by performing Fourier transformation (inverse Fourier transform of light spectrum is computed; [0108]) on the second corrected detection signal (recorded spectra; [0107]).
With respect to Claim 3, Kulkarni discloses the OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of claim 2, further comprising a step of generating a tomographic image (tomographic images/B-scans are created; [0112]) based on the second corrected OCT signal (multiple A-scans acquired at various lateral locations; [0115]).
With respect to Claim 4, Kulkarni discloses the OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of claim 1, wherein the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) is a portion (A(z,x) is amplitude of detected signal corresponding to depth-resolved reflectivity obtained in conventional OCT imaging; [0154]) having a width at half intensity value smaller than a specific value (utilizing FWHM/full-width-half-max spectral width; [0090-91]).
With respect to Claim 5, Kulkarni discloses the OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of claim 1, wherein the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) arises due to constructively interfering light (waves reflected back interfere at detector array 410, interference signal is created when polarization in arms 402 and 403 are matched, 45 degrees λ/8 waveplate included before light is incident on optical delivery unit 408; [0125]) generated by the object optical system (optical delivery unit 408; [0088] and [0097]).
With respect to Claim 6, Kulkarni discloses an OCT device (OCDR-OCT system 400; [0087]; fig. 4) comprising a processor (processor 414; [0087]), wherein:
in the OCT device (OCDR-OCT system 400; [0087]; fig. 4), the processor (processor 414; [0087]) performs processing on a detection signal (detector array 410 to produce a light spectrum, processor performs data analysis using specific algorithms on light spectrum; [0087] and [0106-107]) obtained by separating light (interferometric light is dispersed; [0085] and [0104]) emitted from a light source (light source 405; [0087]) into measurement light (sample arm 403; [0087] and [0100]) and reference light (reference arm 402; [0087] and [0100]), guiding the measurement light (sample arm 403; fig. 4) to an eye (of specimen 407; [0087]) to be examined using an object optical system (optical delivery unit 408 in sample arm 403 focusing light on the eye; [0097]), guiding the reference light (reference arm 402; fig. 4) to a reference optical system (fractional wave mirror comprising fiber optic mirror 417 placed at end of reference arm 402; [0123]), followed by photo-detecting interference light (interference signal via detector array 410; [0125]) resulting from measurement light (sample arm 403; fig. 4) reflected from the eye (of specimen 407; [0087]) to be examined interfering with the reference light (waves reflected back from sample arm 403 and reference arm 402 interfere at detector array 410; [0125]); and
the processor (processor 414; [0087]) executes:
generating an OCT signal (system generates A-scans of the eye; [0110]) by performing Fourier transformation (inverse Fourier transform of light spectrum is computed; [0108]) on the detection signal (detector array 410 produces light spectrum, processor performs data analysis using specific algorithms on light spectrum; [0087] and [0106-107]);
detecting a peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) in the OCT signal (system generates A-scans of the eye; [0110]); and
generating a first corrected OCT signal (resulting arrays that are reflectivity profiles/A-scans of signal processing performed using specific algorithms; [0109-110]) by removing (removing duplicate data and strong spikes; [0109]) the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]).
With respect to Claim 7, Kulkarni discloses the OCT device (OCDR-OCT system 400; [0087]; fig. 4) of claim 6, wherein:
dispersion of a specific amount is imparted (increase/decrease path-length in interferometer by increasing/decreasing fiber-length, fiber stretcher 412 kept in reference arm 402; [0095]) to the reference light (reference arm 402; [0087] and [0100]) by a dispersion section (fiber stretcher 412; [0087]) provided to the reference optical system (fiber optic mirror 417 situated on tip of fiber stretcher 412; [0096]), and the processor (processor 414; [0087]) further executes:
generating a first corrected detection signal (interferometric signal; [0103-104]) by performing inverse Fourier transformation (inverse Fourier transform of light spectrum is computed; [0108]) on the first corrected OCT signal (resulting arrays that are reflectivity profiles/A-scans of signal processing performed using specific algorithms; [0109-110]);
compensating the dispersion (increase/decrease path-length in interferometer by increasing/decreasing fiber-length, fiber stretcher 412 kept in reference arm 402; [0095] via fiber stretcher 412; [0087]) contained in the first corrected detection signal (interferometric signal; [0103-104]) and outputting a second corrected detection signal (recorded spectra; [0107]); and
generating a second corrected OCT signal (multiple A-scans acquired at various lateral locations; [0115]) in which the dispersion (increase/decrease path-length in interferometer by increasing/decreasing fiber-length, fiber stretcher 412 kept in reference arm 402; [0095] via fiber stretcher 412; [0087]) has been compensated by performing Fourier transformation (inverse Fourier transform of light spectrum is computed; [0108]) on the second corrected detection signal (recorded spectra; [0107]).
With respect to Claim 8, Kulkarni discloses the OCT device (OCDR-OCT system 400; [0087]; fig. 4) of claim 7, wherein the processor (processor 414; [0087]) further executes a step of generating a tomographic image (tomographic images/B-scans are created; [0112]) based on the second corrected OCT signal (multiple A-scans acquired at various lateral locations; [0115]).
With respect to Claim 9, Kulkarni discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (machine-readable medium or a computer-readable medium; [0196]) storing a program that causes a computer to execute processing (interferometric data processed in a processor/computer; [0085], program code; [0196]) on a detection signal (detector array 410 to produce a light spectrum, processor performs data analysis using specific algorithms on light spectrum; [0087] and [0106-107]) obtained by separating light (interferometric light is dispersed; [0085] and [0104]) emitted from a light source (light source 405; [0087]) into measurement light (sample arm 403; [0087] and [0100]) and reference light (reference arm 402; [0087] and [0100]), guiding the measurement light (sample arm 403; fig. 4) to an eye (of specimen 407; [0087]) to be examined using an object optical system (optical delivery unit 408 in sample arm 403 focusing light on the eye; [0097]), guiding the reference light (reference arm 402; fig. 4) to a reference optical system (fractional wave mirror comprising fiber optic mirror 417 placed at end of reference arm 402; [0123]), followed by photo-detecting interference light (interference signal via detector array 410; [0125]) resulting from measurement light (sample arm 403; fig. 4) reflected from the eye (of specimen 407; [0087]) to be examined interfering with the reference light (waves reflected back from sample arm 403 and reference arm 402 interfere at detector array 410; [0125]), the program (program code; [0196]) causing the computer (interferometric data processed in a processor/computer; [0085]) to execute:
generating an OCT signal (system generates A-scans of the eye; [0110]) by performing Fourier transformation (inverse Fourier transform of light spectrum is computed; [0108]) on the detection signal (detector array 410 produces light spectrum, processor performs data analysis using specific algorithms on light spectrum; [0087] and [0106-107]);
detecting a peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) in the OCT signal (system generates A-scans of the eye; [0110]); and
generating a first corrected OCT signal (resulting arrays that are reflectivity profiles/A-scans of signal processing performed using specific algorithms; [0109-110]) by removing (removing duplicate data and strong spikes; [0109]) the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]).
Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See also MPEP § 2112.02. See Claim 6 § 102(a)(1) rejections in the present Office action.
With respect to Claim 10, Kulkarni discloses the program (program code; [0196]) of claim 9, wherein:
dispersion of a specific amount is imparted (increase/decrease path-length in interferometer by increasing/decreasing fiber-length, fiber stretcher 412 kept in reference arm 402; [0095]) to the reference light (reference arm 402; [0087] and [0100]) by a dispersion section (fiber stretcher 412; [0087]) provided to the reference optical system (fiber optic mirror 417 situated on tip of fiber stretcher 412; [0096]), and the program (program code; [0196]) causes the computer (interferometric data processed in a processor/computer; [0085]) to further execute:
generating a first corrected detection signal (interferometric signal; [0103-104]) by performing inverse Fourier transformation (inverse Fourier transform of light spectrum is computed; [0108]) on the first corrected OCT signal (resulting arrays that are reflectivity profiles/A-scans of signal processing performed using specific algorithms; [0109-110]);
compensating the dispersion (increase/decrease path-length in interferometer by increasing/decreasing fiber-length, fiber stretcher 412 kept in reference arm 402; [0095] via fiber stretcher 412; [0087]) contained in the first corrected detection signal (interferometric signal; [0103-104]) and outputting a second corrected detection signal (recorded spectra; [0107]); and
generating a second corrected OCT signal (multiple A-scans acquired at various lateral locations; [0115]) in which the dispersion (increase/decrease path-length in interferometer by increasing/decreasing fiber-length, fiber stretcher 412 kept in reference arm 402; [0095] via fiber stretcher 412; [0087]) has been compensated by performing Fourier transformation (inverse Fourier transform of light spectrum is computed; [0108]) on the second corrected detection signal (recorded spectra; [0107]).
With respect to Claim 11, Kulkarni discloses the program (program code; [0196]) of claim 10, wherein the program (program code; [0196]) causes the computer (interferometric data processed in a processor/computer; [0085]) to further execute a step of generating a tomographic image (tomographic images/B-scans are created; [0112]) based on the second corrected OCT signal (multiple A-scans acquired at various lateral locations; [0115]).
With respect to Claim 12, Kulkarni discloses the OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of claim 2, wherein the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) is a portion (A(z,x) is amplitude of detected signal corresponding to depth-resolved reflectivity obtained in conventional OCT imaging; [0154]) having a width at half intensity value smaller than a specific value (utilizing FWHM/full-width-half-max spectral width; [0090-91]).
With respect to Claim 13, Kulkarni discloses the OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of claim 3, wherein the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) is a portion (A(z,x) is amplitude of detected signal corresponding to depth-resolved reflectivity obtained in conventional OCT imaging; [0154]) having a width at half intensity value smaller than a specific value (utilizing FWHM/full-width-half-max spectral width; [0090-91]).
With respect to Claim 14, Kulkarni discloses the OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of claim 2, wherein the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) arises due to constructively interfering light (waves reflected back interfere at detector array 410, interference signal is created when polarization in arms 402 and 403 are matched, 45 degrees λ/8 waveplate included before light is incident on optical delivery unit 408; [0125]) generated by the object optical system (optical delivery unit 408; [0088] and [0097]).
With respect to Claim 15, Kulkarni discloses the OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of claim 3, wherein the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) arises due to constructively interfering light (waves reflected back interfere at detector array 410, interference signal is created when polarization in arms 402 and 403 are matched, 45 degrees λ/8 waveplate included before light is incident on optical delivery unit 408; [0125]) generated by the object optical system (optical delivery unit 408; [0088] and [0097]).
With respect to Claim 16, Kulkarni discloses the OCT signal processing method (OCDR-OCT sub-system uses spectroscopic detection method; [0103]) of claim 4, wherein the peak portion (strong spikes at center of inverse Fourier transform; [0109]) arises due to constructively interfering light (waves reflected back interfere at detector array 410, interference signal is created when polarization in arms 402 and 403 are matched, 45 degrees λ/8 waveplate included before light is incident on optical delivery unit 408; [0125]) generated by the object optical system (optical delivery unit 408; [0088] and [0097]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Kubota US 20180028056 A1 discloses an ophthalmic image processing apparatus and ophthalmic imaging apparatus substantially similar to that of the claimed invention. Goto US 20180153395 A1 discloses an image processing apparatus, imaging apparatus, image processing method, and computer readable storage medium substantially similar to that of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K MUHAMMAD whose telephone number is (571)272-4210. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 1:00pm - 9:30pm EDT.
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, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/K MUHAMMAD/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 17 January 2026
/SHARRIEF I BROOME/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872