DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to the amendment filed 8/26/2026.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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 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.
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.
Claims 1-10, 12, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmoll et al. (US20170105618) in view of Matsunobu et al. (US20180289260) and Brown et al. (US20150216408).
Regarding claim 1, Schmoll teaches a line-field Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography, OCT, imaging system (figs.1-19, paragraph [0008] “a line-field interferometric imaging”; paragraph [0085] “OCT System”; described about a line-field Fourier-domain optical coherence tomography, OCT, imaging system), comprising:
a line-field illumination source arranged to generate a line of light (paragraph [0008] “partial field frequency-domain interferometric imaging system in which a light source generates a light beam”);
a photodetector comprising an array of photodetector elements (paragraph [0096] “A 1D detector would typically use a linear array of photosensitive elements to transform photon energy into electrical signals. A 2D detector would typically use a 2D array of photosensitive elements to transform photon energy into electrical signals”);
an interferometer arranged to receive at least a segment of the aberrated line of light via the scanning element, generate an interference line of light resulting from an interference between a reference light and the at least a segment of the aberrated line of light received via the scanning element, and project the interference line of light onto the array of photodetector elements (see paragraph [0008] “a light source generates a light beam that is divided into sample and reference arms and is scanned in two directions across a light scattering object by sample optics. Return optics combine light scattered from the sample with reference light and direct the combined light to be detected using a spatially resolved detector”; paragraphs [0082]-[0089]; paragraph [0088] “Computational adaptive optics: The computational correction of aberrations with a higher order than defocus”; paragraph [0219] “V. Reconstruction and Computational Adaptive Optics: The use of hardware based adaptive optics for wavefront correction is well established in astronomy and microscopy for point like objects to achieve diffraction limited imaging (Platt, B. C., J. Refract. Surg. 17, S573-S577, 2001; Beverage, J. L. et al., J. Microsc. 205, 61-75, 2002; Rueckel, M. et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 103, 17137-42, 2006). It is currently an active field of research in optical coherence tomography and optical coherence microscopy (Hermann, B. et al., Opt. Lett. 29, 2142-4, 2004; Zawadzki, R. J. et al., Opt. Express 13, 8532, 2005; Sasaki, K. et al., Biomed. Opt. Express 3, 2353-70, 2012). Recently it has been shown that the phase information in the original detected data set can be mathematically manipulated to correct for known spherical aberrations in optical imaging techniques (Kumar, A. et al., Opt. Express 21, 10850-66, 2013; Colomb, T. et al., J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 23, 3177, 2006; Montfort, F. et al., Appl. Opt. 45, 8209, 2006; Kuhn, J. et al., Opt. Lett. 34, 653, 2009; Tippie, A. E. et al., Opt. Express 19, 12027-38, 2011; Adie, S. G. et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 109, 7175-80, 2012).”; thus, it is capable of having “an interferometer arranged to receive at least a segment of the aberrated line of light via the scanning element, generate an interference line of light resulting from an interference between a reference light and the at least a segment of the aberrated line of light received via the scanning element, and project the interference line of light onto the array of photodetector elements”),
wherein the photodetector is arranged to detect the interference line of light projected onto the array of photodetector elements during the scan, and generate a detection signal based on the detected interference line of light (see paragraph [0096]-[0099] “[0096] Detector: We distinguish between 0D, 1D and 2D detectors.” ;“A 2D detector would typically use a 2D array of photosensitive elements to transform photon energy into electrical signals. The photosensitive elements in the 2D detector may be arranged in a rectangular grid, square grid, hexagonal grid, circular grid, or any other arbitrary spatially resolved arrangement. In these arrangements the photosensitive elements may be evenly spaced or may have arbitrary distances in between individual photosensitive elements.” The 2D detector could also be a set of 0D or 1D detectors optically coupled to a 2D set of detection locations. Likewise, a 1D detector could also be a set of 0D detectors or a 1D detector optically coupled to a 2D grid of detection locations. These detection locations could be arranged similarly to the 2D detector arrangements described above. A detector can consist of several photosensitive elements on a common substrate or consist of several separate photosensitive elements. Detectors may further contain amplifiers, filters, analog to digital converters (ADCs), processing units or other analog or digital electronic elements on the same substrate as the photosensitive elements, as part of a read out integrated circuit (ROIC), or on a separate board (e.g. a printed circuit board (PCB)) in proximity to the photosensitive elements. A detector which includes such electronics in proximity to the photosensitive elements is in some instances called “camera.” [0097]
Light beam: Should be interpreted as any carefully directed light path. [0098]
Coordinate system: Throughout this application, the X-Y plane is the enface or transverse plane and Z is the dimension of the beam direction.[0099] Enface image: An image in the X-Y plane. Such an image can be a discrete 2D image, a single slice of a 3D volume or a 2D image resulting from projecting a 3D volume or a subsection of a 3D volume in the Z dimension. A fundus image is one example of an enface image.”
(described above; thus, the photodetector is capable of being arranged to detect the interference line of light projected onto the array of photodetector elements during the scan, and generate a detection signal based on the detected interference line of light); and
OCT data processing hardware arranged to:
generate complex volumetric OCT data of the imaging target based on the detection signal, wherein the complex volumetric OCT data has an optical aberration therein; and
generate corrected complex volumetric OCT data by executing a correction algorithm which uses phase information encoded in the complex volumetric OCT data to correct the complex volumetric OCT data, such that the corrected complex volumetric OCT data has less of the optical aberration than the complex volumetric OCT data (see paragraph [0107] “Details of the processing carried out on the signals for the holoscopy systems illustrated in FIGS. 1 and 2 will now be considered.”; “Wolf recognized that the three-dimensional distribution of the scattering potential of the object can be computationally reconstructed from the distribution of amplitude and phase of the light scattered by the object (Wolf, E., Opt. Commun. 1, 153-156, 1969). The so-called Fourier diffraction theorem, relates the Fourier transform of the acquired scattering data with the Fourier transform of the sample's structure. A correct, spatially invariant volume reconstruction by a 3D Fourier transform of the acquired scattering data”; thus, it is capable of having the OCT data processing hardware arranged to: generate complex volumetric OCT data of the imaging target, the object, based on the detection signal, wherein the complex volumetric OCT data has an optical aberration therein; and generate corrected complex volumetric OCT data by executing a correction algorithm which uses phase information encoded in the complex volumetric OCT data to correct the complex volumetric OCT data, such that the corrected complex volumetric OCT data has less of the optical aberration than the complex volumetric OCT data).
(note: this claim is directed to an apparatus, but many of the limitations thereof are methods of using said apparatus. These steps will be interpreted in terms of the structural limitations that they imply to the extent understood by the examiner and only the structural limitations therein will be given patentable weight. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 97 USPQ2d 1737 (Fed. Cir. 2011; thus, the limitation don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II)
Schmoll does not explicitly disclose wherein a scanning system comprising a scanning element and a curved mirror having a first focal point and a conjugate second focal point, the scanning element arranged to perform a scan of an imaging target via the second focal point, by scanning at least a segment of the line of light across the imaging target via the first focal point and the curved mirror, the scanning element being further arranged to receive, via the curved mirror, light which has been scattered by the imaging target during the scan and aberrated by the curved mirror to form an aberrated line of light comprising at least one of a defocusing or a distortion.
However, Matsunobu teaches the analogous Fourier domain types such as a swept source-OCT (Matsunobu, paragraph [0118]“ Fourier domain types such as a swept source-OCT (SS-OCT) type and a spectral domain-OCT (SD-OCT) type may be used as the OCT optical system 20”), and further teaches wherein a scanning system (Matsunobu, fig.2, paragraph [00] “the light from the OCT optical system 20 is guided to the fundus Er by the objective optical system 2, and then is scattered and reflected by the fundus”) comprising a scanning element (Matsunobu, fig.2, paragraph [0121] “the scanning optical system 1”) and a curved mirror having a first focal point and a conjugate second focal point (paragraph [0209] “the curved mirror is an ellipsoidal mirror which has a first focal point and a second focal point”), the scanning element arranged to perform a scan of an imaging target via the second focal point (paragraph [0209] “the optical scanner and the examinee's eye are respectively disposed at a conjugate position of the first focal point and the second focal point, and the distortion correction optical system is disposed between the optical scanner and the first focal point or between the first focal point and the second focal point.”), by scanning at least a segment of the line of light across the imaging target via the first focal point and the curved mirror, the scanning element being further arranged to receive, via the curved mirror, light which has been scattered by the imaging target during the scan and aberrated by the curved mirror to form an aberrated line of light comprising at least one of a defocusing or a distortion (see fig.2, paragraphs [0200]-[0232], “a distortion correction optical system which guides light from the optical scanner to the curved mirror and cancels out distortion of an image plane caused by the curved mirror.”; since a person skilled in the art could have appropriately conceived of making the central axis around which the scanning element rotates parallel to the axis of circular symmetry of the rotating elliptical mirror ; thus, Matsunobu teaches wherein by scanning at least a segment of the line of light across the imaging target via the first focal point and the curved mirror, the scanning element being further arranged to receive, via the curved mirror, light which has been scattered by the imaging target during the scan and aberrated by the curved mirror to form an aberrated line of light comprising at least one of a defocusing or a distortion; note: the limitations of “to perform …via…by scanning” in the claim is product by process limitations, and don’t impart any requirement on the product itself other than what is already structurally claimed, See MPEP 2173.05(p) sec. II).
Also, Schmoll teaches in paragraph [0189] “partial field frequency-domain imaging system with reflective optics such as convex or aspherical mirrors”; thus,
it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schmoll to have the specific curved mirror as taught by Matsunobu for the purpose to provide a fundus imaging device with a new optical system which is capable of capturing a good wide-range image of a fundus (Matsunobu, paragraph [0006]); also, the claimed as taught by combination Schmoll-Matsunobu for the purpose for processing the resulting signals to identify motion within the sample (Schmoll, paragraph [0008]).
Schmoll in view of Matsunobu does not explicitly disclose wherein the complex volumetric OCT data has an optical aberration therein caused by the curved mirror.
However, Brown teaches the analogous OCT imaging system (see Brown, figs. 4–6, paragraphs [0062]–[0064], wherein OCT illumination is propagated through scan relay and scan transfer devices that may comprise ellipsoidal mirrors), and further combination Schmoll-Brown teaches wherein the complex volumetric OCT data (Schmoll, paragraph [0107], teaches generating complex volumetric OCT data of the imaging target based on the detection signal) has an optical aberration therein caused by the curved mirror (see Brown, figs. 4–6, paragraphs [0062]–[0064], teaches that the scan relay and scan transfer devices may comprise ellipsoidal mirrors that introduce optical aberrations; in particular, aberrations are introduced as the illumination is scanned through the elliptical sections of the scan relay and scan transfer devices, including first-order focal aberration and astigmatism, and the ellipsoidal geometry of the mirror causes the beam to incur greater aberration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OCT imaging system of Schmoll in view of Matsunobu such that the complex volumetric OCT data has an optical aberration therein caused by the curved mirror, as taught by Brown, for the purpose of compensating for aberrations introduced by the ellipsoidal mirror so as to maintain focus and improve spatial resolution of the OCT image (Brown, paragraphs [0062]–[0064]).
Regarding claim 2, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Schmoll further teaches wherein the line-field Fourier-domain OCT imaging system is a line-field swept-source OCT imaging system (paragraph [0066] “FIG. 4 illustrates one embodiment of a swept-source based partial-field frequency-domain imaging system”),
the line-field illumination source is a swept line-field illumination source arranged to generate the line of light, and
the array of photodetector elements is a one-dimensional array of photodetector elements (see paragraph [0066] “FIG. 5 illustrates one embodiment of a swept-source based partial-field frequency-domain imaging system with collimated sample illumination”; thus, Schmoll teaches the line-field illumination source is a swept line-field illumination source arranged to generate the line of light, and the array of photodetector elements is a one-dimensional array of photodetector elements), and the photodetector elements of the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements are arrayed along a length of a projection of the interference line of light onto the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements (described in claim 1, and above, thus, Schmoll teaches the photodetector elements of the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements are arrayed along a length of a projection of the interference line of light onto the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements).
Regarding claim 3, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 2, Schmoll does not explicitly disclose wherein the photodetector elements of the one-dimensional array have a width, in a direction perpendicular to a length of the projection of the interference line of light onto the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements, which is wider than a maximum width of the projection of the interference line of light onto the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements.
However, Schmoll teaches in paragraph [0077] “the detector is used to collect the interference light”; paragraph [0135] “In the following we describe preferred detector configurations for off-axis embodiments of partial field frequency-domain imaging systems for different imaging relationships between the sample and the detector: 1) Detector placed at a position corresponding to a conjugate plane of the pupil : a. Symmetric FOV—photosensitive elements should be significantly narrower (at least 1.5×, typically 2-3×) in the off-axis dimension relative to the other dimension in order to support high spatial frequencies generated by the off-axis illumination. Note, this could also be achieved by magnifying the pupil in the dimension of the off-axis illumination on the way to the detector or by demagnifying the pupil in the dimension perpendicular to the off-axis illumination on the way to the detector. b. FOV significantly longer (at least 1.5×, typically 2-3×) in the dimension perpendicular to the off-axis illumination—photosensitive elements would typically be square, although depending on the ratio of the dimensions, rectangular ones could also be used”; paragraph [0202] “FIG. 16 schematically illustrates this concept. It is a schematic side view of a portion of streak mode line field detection set-up, where a streak scanner 16001 directs the line of light through a lens 16002 to different positions on the detector 16003 over time. The high frequency dashed lines represent the scanner orientation and light path at the beginning of the sweep, the solid lines in the middle of the sweep, and the low frequency dashed lines at the end of the sweep.”; paragraphs [0095]-[0099], “A detector or camera can have an array of photosensitive elements”, thus, it is capable of having the photodetector elements of the one-dimensional array have a width, in a direction perpendicular to a length of the projection of the interference line of light onto the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements, which is wider than a maximum width of the projection of the interference line of light onto the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements.
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Schmoll to have the specific ratio for the purpose of processing the resulting signals to identify motion within the sample (Schmoll, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Schmoll further teaches wherein the line-field Fourier-domain OCT imaging system is a line-field swept-source OCT imaging system (paragraph [0066] “FIG. 4 illustrates one embodiment of a swept-source based partial-field frequency-domain imaging system”),
the line-field illumination source is a swept line-field illumination source, and
the array of photodetector elements is a two-dimensional array of photodetector elements (see paragraph [0066] “FIG. 5 illustrates one embodiment of a swept-source based partial-field frequency-domain imaging system with collimated sample illumination”; thus, Schmoll teaches the line-field illumination source is a swept line-field illumination source arranged to generate the line of light, and the array of photodetector elements is a one-dimensional array of photodetector elements), and the photodetector elements of the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements are arrayed in a first direction along a length of a projection of the interference line of light onto the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements, and in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction (see paragraph [0008] “ is scanned in two directions across a light scattering object by sample optics. Return optics combine light scattered from the sample with reference light and direct the combined light to be detected using a spatially resolved detector. The light beam could illuminate a plurality of locations on the light scattering object with a spot, a line or a two-dimensional area of illumination”; thus, Schmoll teaches wherein the photodetector elements of the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements are arrayed in a first direction along a length of a projection of the interference line of light onto the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements, and in a second direction which is perpendicular to the first direction).
Regarding claim 5, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 4 and Schmoll further teaches the projection of the interference line of light onto the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements is spanned in the second direction by a plurality of the photodetector elements (see; paragraph [0096] “In these arrangements the photosensitive elements may be evenly spaced or may have arbitrary distances in between individual photosensitive elements”; paragraph [0204]-[0213]; and fig.18D, having a plurality of the photodetector elements; thus, it is capable of the projection of the interference line of light onto the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements is spanned in the second direction by a plurality of the photodetector).
Schmoll does not explicitly disclose wherein a width of the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements, in the second direction, is wider than a maximum width of the projection of the interference line of light onto the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements.
However, Schmoll teaches in paragraph [0077] “the detector is used to collect the interference light”; paragraph [0135] “In the following we describe preferred detector configurations for off-axis embodiments of partial field frequency-domain imaging systems for different imaging relationships between the sample and the detector: 1) Detector placed at a position corresponding to a conjugate plane of the pupil : a. Symmetric FOV—photosensitive elements should be significantly narrower (at least 1.5×, typically 2-3×) in the off-axis dimension relative to the other dimension in order to support high spatial frequencies generated by the off-axis illumination. Note, this could also be achieved by magnifying the pupil in the dimension of the off-axis illumination on the way to the detector or by demagnifying the pupil in the dimension perpendicular to the off-axis illumination on the way to the detector. b. FOV significantly longer (at least 1.5×, typically 2-3×) in the dimension perpendicular to the off-axis illumination—photosensitive elements would typically be square, although depending on the ratio of the dimensions, rectangular ones could also be used”; paragraph [0202] “FIG. 16 schematically illustrates this concept. It is a schematic side view of a portion of streak mode line field detection set-up, where a streak scanner 16001 directs the line of light through a lens 16002 to different positions on the detector 16003 over time. The high frequency dashed lines represent the scanner orientation and light path at the beginning of the sweep, the solid lines in the middle of the sweep, and the low frequency dashed lines at the end of the sweep.”; paragraphs [0095]-[0099], “A detector or camera can have an array of photosensitive elements”, thus, it is capable of having a width of the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements, in the second direction, is wider than a maximum width of the projection of the interference line of light onto the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements.
It is a well-established proposition that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984), see MPEP 2114.04(IV).
Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the apparatus of Schmoll to have the specific ratio for the purpose of processing the resulting signals to identify motion within the sample (Schmoll, paragraph [0008]).
Regarding claim 6, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Schmoll further teaches wherein the line-field Fourier-domain OCT imaging system is a line-field spectral domain OCT imaging system (paragraph [0008] “Another embodiment is a line-field interferometric imaging system”),
the line-field illumination source is a broadband line-field illumination source arranged to generate the line of light (paragraph [0008] “Another embodiment is a line-field interferometric imaging system including a light source whose bandwidth provides depth sectioning capability due to its limited coherence length and a means for generating a carrier frequency in the combined reference and scattered light to shift the frequency of the detected signals.”),
the array of photodetector elements is a two-dimensional array of photodetector elements, and
the photodetector comprises a two-dimensional spectrometer comprising a diffraction element and the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements (see paragraph [0085] “the frequency domain implementation based on diffraction tomography. OCT systems can be point-scanning, multi-beam or field systems”), the diffraction element being arranged to disperse a spectral content of the interference line of light across the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements in a first direction, which is perpendicular to a second direction along which a projection of the interference line of light onto the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements extends, wherein the photodetector elements of the two-dimensional array are arrayed in the first direction and in the second direction (see paragraphs [0085]-[0093], “A partial field illumination could be e.g. a spot created by a low NA beam, a line, or any two-dimensional area including but not limited to a broad-line, an elliptical, square or rectangular illumination”; thus, it is having diffraction element being arranged to disperse a spectral content of the interference line of light across the two-dimensional array of photodetector elements in a first direction, which is perpendicular to a second direction along which a projection of the interference line of light onto the one-dimensional array of photodetector elements extends, wherein the photodetector elements of the two-dimensional array are arrayed in the first direction and in the second direction).
Regarding claim 7, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Schmoll further teaches wherein the scanning element is a first scanning element arranged to scan the at least a segment of the line of light in a first direction across a surface of the imaging target such that projections of the at least a segment of the line of light onto the surface of the imaging target during the scan are displaced relative to each other along the first direction, and
the scanning system further comprises a second scanning element, which is arranged to reflect the at least a segment of the line of light from the line-field illumination source toward the first scanning element, and arranged to change, in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and in a third direction opposite to the second direction, a position at which the first scanning element is to scan the at least a segment of the line of light across the surface of the imaging target (see paragraph [0008] “a light source generates a light beam that is divided into sample and reference arms and is scanned in two directions across a light scattering object by sample optics. Return optics combine light scattered from the sample with reference light and direct the combined light to be detected using a spatially resolved detector”; thus, the scanning element is having a first scanning element arranged to scan the at least a segment of the line of light in a first direction across a surface of the imaging target such that projections of the at least a segment of the line of light onto the surface of the imaging target during the scan are displaced relative to each other along the first direction, and the scanning system further comprises a second scanning element, which is arranged to reflect the at least a segment of the line of light from the line-field illumination source toward the first scanning element, and arranged to change, in a second direction that is perpendicular to the first direction, and in a third direction opposite to the second direction, a position at which the first scanning element is to scan the at least a segment of the line of light across the surface of the imaging target).
Regarding claim 8, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 7 and Schmoll further teaches wherein the first scanning element is arranged to scan the at least a segment of the line of light in the first direction across the surface of the imaging target, or in a direction opposite to the first direction across the surface of the imaging target, both before and after the change (target (see paragraph [0008] “a light source generates a light beam that is divided into sample and reference arms and is scanned in two directions across a light scattering object by sample optics. Return optics combine light scattered from the sample with reference light and direct the combined light to be detected using a spatially resolved detector”; since Schmoll teaches the light source generates the light beam that is divided into sample and reference arms and is scanned in two directions across a light scattering object by sample optics, thus, teaches wherein the first scanning element is arranged to scan the at least a segment of the line of light in the first direction across the surface of the imaging target, or in a direction opposite to the first direction across the surface of the imaging target, both before and after the change).
Regarding claim 9, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Matsunobu further teaches wherein the curved mirror is a spheroid mirror having an axis of circular symmetry, and the scanning element is arranged to perform the scan of the imaging target by scanning the at least a segment of the line of light across the imaging target via the spheroid mirror such that the at least a segment of the line of light incident on the spheroid mirror propagates in a plane which is parallel to the axis of circular symmetry of the spheroid mirror (see Matsunobu, fig.2, paragraph [0084] “The second mirror 60 illustrated in FIG. 2 is a spheroidal mirror”; “Furthermore, in a case of the spheroidal mirror, the focal point r2 is formed on a reflection side, thus light is easily incident at a steep angle with respect to a visual axis. As a result, it is possible to capture a wide angle image of the fundus.”; “[0030] an optical member configured to correct an inclination of an image plane which occurs as the fundus reflected light is reflected by each mirror of the objective optical system. [0031] (10) The fundus imaging device as set forth in (9), further including: [0032] a correction mirror system configured to correct the inclination of the image plane, as the optical member, [0033] in which the correction mirror system is disposed between the optical scanner and a third mirror disposed between the optical scanner and the first mirror, and [0034] the third mirror is configured to correct an eccentric aberration in the objective optical system. [0035] (11) The fundus imaging device as set forth in (9), [0036] in which the scanning optical system includes a line sensor or an area sensor as a detector configured to receive the fundus reflected light, and a line-scanning SLO optical system configured to scan the fundus with line-shaped light fluxes using the optical scanner, and [0037] the optical member is the detector disposed inclined with respect to an optical axis.”; thus, Matsunobu teaches wherein the curved mirror is a spheroid mirror having an axis of circular symmetry, and the scanning element is arranged to perform the scan of the imaging target by scanning the at least a segment of the line of light across the imaging target via the spheroid mirror such that the at least a segment of the line of light incident on the spheroid mirror propagates in a plane which is parallel to the axis of circular symmetry of the spheroid mirror; the motivation to combine Schmoll and Matsunobu as provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein).
Regarding claim 10, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Matsunobu further teaches wherein the curved mirror is a spheroid mirror, and
the scanning element is arranged to perform the scan of the imaging target by scanning the at least a segment of the line of light across the imaging target via the spheroid mirror such that a portion of the spheroid mirror, onto which the at least a segment of the line of light is projected, has reflective symmetry about a plane parallel to and passing through the axis of circular symmetry (see Matsunobu, fig.2, paragraph [0084] “The second mirror 60 illustrated in FIG. 2 is a spheroidal mirror”; “Furthermore, in a case of the spheroidal mirror, the focal point r2 is formed on a reflection side, thus light is easily incident at a steep angle with respect to a visual axis. As a result, it is possible to capture a wide angle image of the fundus.”; “[0030] an optical member configured to correct an inclination of an image plane which occurs as the fundus reflected light is reflected by each mirror of the objective optical system. [0031] (10) The fundus imaging device as set forth in (9), further including: [0032] a correction mirror system configured to correct the inclination of the image plane, as the optical member, [0033] in which the correction mirror system is disposed between the optical scanner and a third mirror disposed between the optical scanner and the first mirror, and [0034] the third mirror is configured to correct an eccentric aberration in the objective optical system. [0035] (11) The fundus imaging device as set forth in (9), [0036] in which the scanning optical system includes a line sensor or an area sensor as a detector configured to receive the fundus reflected light, and a line-scanning SLO optical system configured to scan the fundus with line-shaped light fluxes using the optical scanner, and [0037] the optical member is the detector disposed inclined with respect to an optical axis.”; thus, Matsunobu teaches wherein the curved mirror is a spheroid mirror, and the scanning element is arranged to perform the scan of the imaging target by scanning the at least a segment of the line of light across the imaging target via the spheroid mirror such that a portion of the spheroid mirror, onto which the at least a segment of the line of light is projected, has reflective symmetry about a plane parallel to and passing through the axis of circular symmetry; the motivation to combine Schmoll and Matsunobu as provided in claim 1 is incorporated herein).
Regarding claim 12, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Schmoll further teaches wherein further comprising a light source, wherein the line-field Fourier-domain OCT imaging system is arranged to measure a response of a retina of an eye to a light stimulus generated by the light source (see paragraph [0102] “Full-field interferometric systems acquire many A-scans in parallel, by illuminating the sample with a field of light and detecting the backscattered light with a 2D detector. While the tunable laser sweeps through its optical frequencies, several hundred acquisitions on the detector are required in order to be able to reconstruct a cross-section or volume with a reasonable depth (>500 μm) and resolution. Instead of using transverse scanning to image a desired FOV, full-field systems illuminate and detect the entire FOV at once. A desired minimum FOV size for imaging the human retina” ; thus, Schmoll teaches wherein further comprising a light source, wherein the line-field Fourier-domain OCT imaging system is arranged to measure a response of a retina of an eye to a light stimulus generated by the light source).
Regarding claim 16, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 and Schmoll further teaches wherein the OCT data processing hardware ([0028] “V. Reconstruction and Computational Adaptive Optics: a. Computational Chromatic Aberration Correction; b. Hybrid hardware/computational adaptive optics”) is further arranged to:
acquire the complex volumetric OCT data of the imaging target, the complex volumetric OCT data having an optical aberration therein (paragraph [0028] “V. Reconstruction and Computational Adaptive Optics: a. Computational Chromatic Aberration Correction; b. Hybrid hardware/computational adaptive optics”); and
generate corrected complex volumetric OCT data by executing a correction algorithm which uses phase information encoded in the complex volumetric OCT data to correct the complex volumetric OCT data, such that the corrected complex volumetric OCT data has less of the optical aberration than the complex volumetric OCT data (see paragraphs [0351],[ 0111] “Note, especially in reconstruction methods, where the sampling in the spatial frequency domain is corrected by the application of a phase filter in the {kx, ky, z}-space, this phase filtering step can be skipped for the plane corresponding to the optical focal plane (Kumar, A. et al., Opt. Express 21, 10850-66, 2013; Kumar, A. et al., Opt. Express 22, 16061-78, 2014”; thus, Schmoll teaches wherein generate corrected complex volumetric OCT data by executing a correction algorithm which uses phase information encoded in the complex volumetric OCT data to correct the complex volumetric OCT data, such that the corrected complex volumetric OCT data has less of the optical aberration than the complex volumetric OCT data).
Regarding claim 17, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and Brown further teaches wherein the optical aberration (Brown, paragraphs [0062]–[0064], teaches optical aberrations introduced by the ellipsoidal scan relay and scan transfer mirror optics, including first-order focal aberration and astigmatism) caused by the curved mirror comprises a defocusing (Brown, paragraphs [0062]–[0064], teaches that changes in the radius of curvature of the ellipsoidal mirror optics change the focal properties of the OCT beam and that the resulting aberration includes first-order focal aberration) caused by an elliptical curvature of the curved mirror (Brown, US 2015/0216408 A1, figs. 2 and 4–6, paragraphs [0062]–[0064], teaches that the scan relay and scan transfer devices may comprise ellipsoidal mirrors and that the change in radius of curvature of the mirror optics as a function of scan angle changes the focal properties of the OCT beam; Brown further teaches that aberrations are introduced as the illumination is scanned through the elliptical sections of the scan relay and scan transfer devices, wherein the aberration is predominantly first-order focal aberration and astigmatism, and that due to the ellipsoidal geometry of the mirror the OCT beam incurs greater aberration).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the curved mirror of the OCT imaging system of Schmoll in view of Matsunobu such that the optical aberration caused by the curved mirror comprises a defocusing caused by an elliptical curvature of the curved mirror, as taught by Brown, for the purpose of compensating for changes in focal properties and optical aberrations introduced by the ellipsoidal mirror so as to maintain focus and improve OCT spatial resolution (Brown, paragraphs [0062]–[0064]).
Regarding claim 19, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, and Brown further teaches wherein the scanning element (Brown, figs. 2 and 4–6, teaches scanning element 16 positioned at a focal point of the ellipsoidal scan transfer mirror 20) comprises a mirror (Brown, teaches scanning element 16 as an optical scanning mirror used to direct the OCT illumination) arranged to rotate about an axis of rotation (see Brown, figs. 2 and 4–6, teaches rotation of the scanning element for directing the OCT illumination and further describes the rotational axis of the scanning element relative to the focal geometry of the scan transfer device) passing through the first focal point of the curved mirror
(Brown, figs. 2, 4–6, teaches a second scanning element 16 comprising a scanning mirror positioned at a first focus of the ellipsoidal scan transfer mirror 20, and teaches rotation of scanning element 16 to direct the OCT illumination across the retina; Brown further teaches a rotational axis of the scanning element relative to the line joining the two foci of the scan transfer device; see Brown, paragraphs corresponding to figs. 2 and 4–6, and the disclosure that the second scanner 16 is positioned at the first focus of main mirror 20 and that the OCT illumination is directed by rotation of scanning element 16).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrange the scanning mirror such that its axis of rotation passes through the first focal point at which the scanning mirror is positioned, as taught or suggested by Brown, for the purpose of rotating the scanning mirror about the focal position while maintaining the apparent scanning point at the first focus of the ellipsoidal scan transfer mirror (Brown, figs. 2 and 4–6 and the disclosure of scanning element 16 positioned at the first focus of ellipsoidal main mirror 20).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1-10, 12, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmoll et al. (US20170105618) in view of Matsunobu et al. (US20180289260) and Brown et al. (US20150216408), and further in view of Koch et al. (“Linear OCT System with down conversion of the fringe pattern”, Coherence Domain Optical Methods and Optical Coherence Tomography in Biomedicine VIII, edited by Valery V. Tuchin, Joseph A. Izatt, James G. Fujimoto, Proc. of SPIE Vol. 5316).
Regarding claim 11, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu discloses the invention as described in Claim 1 Schmoll does not explicitly disclose wherein further comprising a mask having a first region and a second region that surrounds the first region, wherein the first region has a higher transparency than the second region, the mask both being located in the line-field Fourier-domain OCT imaging system and having the first region shaped so as to allow at least some of the interference line of light to propagate to the array of photodetector elements and at least partially prevent light other than the interference line of light from propagating to the array of photodetector elements.
However, Koch teaches wherein further comprising a mask having a first region and a second region that surrounds the first region, wherein the first region has a higher transparency than the second region, the mask both being located in the line-field Fourier-domain OCT imaging system and having the first region shaped so as to allow at least some of the interference line of light to propagate to the array of photodetector elements and at least partially prevent light other than the interference line of light from propagating to the array of photodetector elements (Koch, abstract, “We present a new system for LOCT which extends the measurement range of LOCT systems by attaching a mask on the image sensor. The mask essentially performs a down conversion of the spatial frequencies by multiplication with a second spatial frequency. We use this effect to reduce the fringe frequency of the OCT signal so that sampling and calculating the modulation of the signal can be done with relatively few pixels. The theory for this approach is addressed and first measurements are presented.”).
(Also, Schmoll in paragraph [0228] “In the section above, a combination of computational and hardware adaptive optics for the correction of higher order aberrations was described. A holoscopy system is also able to detect plain defocus for example by the split aperture method described by Kumar et al. (Kumar, A. et al., Opt. Express 21, 10850-66, 2013). By the offset between at least two sub-aperture images, one is able to tell the amount of defocus, i.e. the distance between the sample and the focal position as well as whether the sample is in front of the focal position or behind the focal position. This is all the information needed to bring the sample immediately (non-iteratively) optically into focus, e.g. by translating a lens or changing the focal length of an adaptive lens. This method has the advantage of significantly faster focusing compared to today's commercially available OCT systems, which typically use active autofocusing methods, where the focus is scanned and the optimum focus position is determined by detecting a maximum in intensity and/or contrast in the image throughout the focus scan”.)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Schmoll to have the specific mask as taught by Koch for the purpose to reduce the fringe frequency of the OCT signal so that sampling and calculating the modulation of the signal can be done with relatively few pixels (Koch, abstract).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1-10, 12, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmoll et al. (US20170105618) in view of Matsunobu et al. (US20180289260) and Brown et al. (US20150216408), and further in view of Shemonski et al., (“Computational high-resolution optical imaging of the living human retina,” Nature Photonics, Vol. 9, pp. 440–443 (2015)).
Regarding claim 18, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Schmoll does not explicitly disclose wherein the correction algorithm applies a phase filter to the complex volumetric OCT data in a Fourier domain.
However, Shemonski teaches wherein the correction algorithm (Shemonski et al., “Computational high-resolution optical imaging of the living human retina,” Nature Photonics, Vol. 9, pp. 440–443 (2015), page 8, under “Wavefront measurement and decomposition,” teaches that an aberration correction algorithm is run on OCT data) applies a phase filter (Shemonski et al., page 8, under “Wavefront measurement and decomposition,” teaches that after the aberration correction algorithm is run on a frame, a single phase filter is calculated to transform the OCT data to aberration-corrected data) to the complex volumetric OCT data in a Fourier domain (Shemonski, page 8, under “Wavefront measurement and decomposition,” teaches that the single phase filter is calculated in the Fourier domain to transform the OCT data to aberration-corrected data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OCT imaging system of Schmoll in view of Matsunobu and Brown to apply a phase filter to the complex volumetric OCT data in a Fourier domain, as taught by Shemonski et al., for the purpose of transforming the OCT data to aberration-corrected data (Shemonski, page 8, under “Wavefront measurement and decomposition”).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Claims 1-10, 12, 16-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmoll et al. (US20170105618) in view of Matsunobu et al. (US20180289260) and Brown et al. (US20150216408), and further in view of South et al.,(“Combined hardware and computational optical wavefront correction,” Biomedical Optics Express, Vol. 9, No. 6, pp. 2562–2574 (2018)).
Regarding claim 20, combination Schmoll-Matsunobu-Brown discloses the invention as described in Claim 1, Schmoll does not explicitly disclose wherein the OCT data processing hardware is arranged to generate each corrected B-scan of the corrected complex volumetric OCT data by executing the correction algorithm using phase information encoded in a corresponding B-scan of the complex volumetric OCT data.
However, South teaches wherein the OCT data processing hardware (see South, page 2567, sections 2.3–2.4, teaches computational processing of phase-stable OCT volumetric data, including phase correction and computational adaptive optics (CAO) processing) is arranged to generate each corrected B-scan of the corrected complex volumetric OCT data (South et al., page 2567, section 2.3, teaches that phase motion in the HAO-OCT data set was corrected using an axial motion stabilization method and that the modification taken along the entire length of the fast-scanning axis provides a single phase correction for each fast-axis B-scan) by executing the correction algorithm using phase information encoded in a corresponding B-scan of the complex volumetric OCT data (South et al., page 2567, sections 2.3–2.4, teaches that each fast-axis B-scan is provided with a single phase correction, resulting in a smooth phase profile suitable for CAO processing, and further teaches that residual aberrations in the HAO-OCT data are corrected using CAO in post-processing by modifying the phase of the wavefront correction filter in the spatial frequency domain).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the OCT data processing of Schmoll in view of Matsunobu and Brown to generate each corrected B-scan of the corrected complex volumetric OCT data by executing the correction algorithm using phase information encoded in a corresponding B-scan of the complex volumetric OCT data, as taught by South et al., for the purpose of correcting phase motion and providing a smooth phase profile suitable for computational aberration correction (South et al., page 2567, sections 2.3–2.4).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed in the Remarks dated 8/26/2026, see Remarks, pages 9-12, have been considered but are not persuasive.
In the remarks, Applicant argues that:
Schmoll fails to disclose or suggest “wherein the complex volumetric OCT data has an optical aberration therein caused by the curved mirror,” because Schmoll's discussion of paragraph [0107] concerns reconstruction of acquired scattering data and does not teach an optical aberration caused by a curved mirror. Applicant further argues that Schmoll's computational correction of spherical aberration does not remedy this deficiency because Schmoll does not disclose the claimed curved mirror.In response to Applicant's argument(s) of 1:
Applicant's argument has been considered. In view of the amendment to claim 1, the rejection has been modified to additionally rely upon Brown (US 2015/0216408 A1) for the newly recited limitation “wherein the complex volumetric OCT data has an optical aberration therein caused by the curved mirror.” Brown teaches an OCT imaging system employing scan relay and scan transfer devices that may comprise ellipsoidal mirrors and teaches that aberrations are introduced as the OCT illumination is scanned through the elliptical sections of the scan relay and scan transfer devices, including first-order focal aberration and astigmatism (Brown, figs. 4–6, paragraphs [0062]–[0064]). Brown further teaches that the ellipsoidal geometry of the mirror causes the OCT beam to incur aberration (Brown, paragraphs [0062]–[0064]). Accordingly, the present rejection does not rely solely upon Schmoll for the newly recited limitation.
In the remarks, Applicant argues that:
Matsunobu fails to remedy the deficiencies of Schmoll because Matsunobu compensates for optical aberrations using optical hardware solutions, such as an additional mirror or modification of the mirror surface, and therefore teaches away from executing a correction algorithm for complex volumetric OCT data having an optical aberration caused by a curved mirror.In response to Applicant's argument(s) of 2:
Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Matsunobu is relied upon for the curved-mirror scanning arrangement, including the curved mirror having a first focal point and a conjugate second focal point, and is not relied upon for the claimed phase-based computational correction. Schmoll teaches computational correction of optical aberrations using phase information encoded in complex volumetric OCT data, while Brown additionally teaches that ellipsoidal curved-mirror optics introduce optical aberrations. Mitsunobu’s disclosure of optical approaches for compensating aberrations does not teach away from the proposed combination merely because Matsunobu describes an alternative approach for correcting aberrations. Matsunobu does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the use of computational or phase-based aberration correction with the disclosed curved-mirror scanning arrangement
In the remarks, Applicant argues that:
Koch fails to remedy the deficiencies of Schmoll and Matsunobu, and therefore claim 1 and the dependent claims are allowable over the cited references.In response to Applicant's argument(s) of 3:
Applicant's argument is not persuasive. Koch is not relied upon to remedy the limitations of claim 1 discussed above. Koch is relied upon with respect to the additional mask limitations recited in claim 11, as set forth in the rejection of claim 11. The rejection of amended claim 1 has been modified to additionally rely upon Brown for the newly recited curved-mirror-induced aberration limitation. Accordingly, Applicant's argument regarding Koch does not identify a deficiency in the rejection of claim 11.
Examiner's Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
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 extension fee 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 KUEI-JEN LEE EDENFIELD whose telephone number is (571)272-3005. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. -Thurs 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pinping Sun can be reached on (571) 270-1284.The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273- 8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published application may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/KUEI-JEN L EDENFIELD/
Examiner, Art Unit 2872
/WILLIAM R ALEXANDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
