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 .
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claim 1 as to whether "line scan camera" is an element is withdrawn in light of the clarifying amendment.
The rejection of claim 5 has been withdrawn and a new rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d) is made for not further limiting the structure of claim 1.
Claim Interpretation
Applicant’s arguments that processor does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) in light of VDPP LLC v. Vizio. The Examiner is not persuaded. The Examiner is not presented with why VDPP is pertinent besides the use of the word "processor." Nothing was found by the Examiner that stated the term "processor" does not invoke 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) as a rule. In a more recent Federal Circuit decision (WSOU Investments LLC v. Google LLC, Nos. 2022-1063, 2022-1065 (Fed. Cir. 2023)), it was held "As such, there is no categorical rule regarding whether the term “processor” connotes sufficient structure to avoid interpretation in means-plus-function format" (page 8).
The word "processor" is not found in the disclosure and was added in the claim amendment of January 2, 2026 and so the disclosure does not provide any indication that the term processor has a narrower definition than that found in a standard dictionary. Merriam Webster defines "processor" as "one that processes"; Oxford defines it as "a machine that processes something." These definitions (a "machine" and "one") do not reveal the term to have specific structural meaning for performing the claimed functions. The claim also only requires the processor to be capable of executing an "imaging application" because the claim states that the execution of the imaging application configures the processor, not that the processor is so configured. This imaging application is recited as being stored in a memory. Even assuming that the processor is more specific such a CPU, the claim does not require the CPU to be configured with the imaging application.
Applicant argues these structures are sufficient structures to support their operational relationships. The structures are not found to be sufficient structure to perform the claimed functions because they are generic structures not sufficient for performing the claimed functions. These structures may be sufficient structures to perform generic functions such as storing, receiving and transmitting, but no evidence before the examiners that these generic computer related elements, without further modification, are capable of performing the claimed functions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Applicants arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 5 recites that the processor is configured to generate cross-sectional images having an axial resolution of 5.6 ± 1.7 μm. Nothing was found in the disclosure revealing any additional structure or algorithm that corresponds to the processor being able to achieve the claimed resolution. It appears that the claimed resolution is achieved due to the properties of the light generated, not the processor. See paragraphs [0035]-[0036]. As such, the processor of claim 5 is the same processor of claim 1 in that the processor of claim 1 would also be able to generate images at the claimed resolution. For these reasons, claim 5 does not further limit the structure of the system of claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Interpretation
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“computing device…” in claims 1-13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 10, 14, 15, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipson et al. (US 2021/0215471; "Lipson 471" hereafter) in view of Cense et al. (US 2009/0196477), Lipson et al. (2012/0177060; "Lipson 060") and Jang et al. (US 2021/0381819).
Lipson 471 shows:
(and claim 14) A system for performing optical coherence tomography (OCT) on a target using microcomb lasers comprising:
a laser generator (Fig. 7. DFB laser) configured to generate a laser beam;
an optical amplifier (AMP) configured to amplify the laser beam;
a microresonator (Fig. 1A) configured to:
receive the amplified laser beam; and
couple the received laser beam into the microresonator to generate a microcomb laser at a wavelength between 1000 nm and 1100 nm (Para. [0005]: "working at longer wavelengths (above 1 μm);" (Para. [0011]: "Microresonator frequency combs…cover a wide wavelength range from the visible to the mid-infrared," Para. []:"This platform can be used to generate frequency combs to cover all wavelength ranges needed for OCT"),
wherein the microresonator comprises at least one of:
a grating (para. [0037]: " A grating is used to filter out the pump laser before the comb is sent to the OCT system. ") configured to filter the generated microcomb laser;
an interferometer (Fig. 8, circulator, beam splitter) configured to split the generated microcomb laser into a sample arm and a reference arm (para. [00037]: "The fiber coupled light source is sent into a circulator, from which the beam is first collimated in free space and then split for the two OCT interferometer arms. The reference arm includes glass prisms to control dispersion. In the sample arm the beam reflects off a fast scanning mirror and is sent to the sample for imaging.");
an OCT probe (Fig. 8. scanning mirror and L2) configured to generate tomograms of a target using the sample arm; and
a spectrometer (Fig. 8, Spectrometer), comprising:
a computing device (para. [0058]: "the commercialized SD-OCT system, OCT images may be acquired." One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a computing device is used) comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing an imaging application executable by the processor, wherein the execution of the imaging application configures the processor to:
obtain depth information from the interferogram on the line scan camera; and
generate cross-sectional images of the target based on the obtained depth information (para. [0010], [0058]; these functions describe what OCT imaging is).
As indicated by the strikeouts, Lipson only shows a spectrometer by a box and does not show that the spectrometer has a collimator, a transmission grating, a line scan camera, and a set of lenses. Lipson 471 also does not show the microresonators being the Dogbone or Racetrack resonators as claimed.
Cense shows an OCT wherein the spectrometer (Fig. 1) has a collimator (Col 70), a linescan camera (LSC), a transmission grating (TG), and a set of lenses (ASL 90). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use the spectrometer of Cense as the spectrometer in Lipson for nothing more that the expected result of spectrally resolving the interference signal and thereby produce the OCT images.
Regarding the Dogbone or Racetrack microresonators and their FSR, Lipson 060 shows an optical apparatus for application in optical coherence tomography (Para. [0008]) wherein the micro optical resonator is at least one racetrack resonator (Para. [0041]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to at least one racetrack resonator for nothing but the expected functional equivalent of a microresonator called for by Lipson 471. As to the FSR, Lipson 471 does not explicitly show the FSR to be 50 to 100 GHz. Jang show a microresonator applicable for optical coherence tomography (para. [0054]) wherein the FSR is found to be 88 GHz (para. [0063]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious have the FSR of the microresonator to be in the range between 50-100 GHz, e.g. 88 GHz for in order to use swept-wavelength interferometric optical coherence tomography and also would have the resulting FSR in that range based on the desired wavelength and wavelength spacing. Furthermore, the disclosure does not indicate any unexpected results due to the FSR being between 50-100 GHz.
2. (and claim 15) The system of claim 1, wherein generating cross-sectional images of the target further comprises:
calibrating the interferogram;
applying noise reduction to the calibrated interferogram;
apodizing the calibrated interferogram;
applying phase corrections to the calibrated interferogram; and
applying fast Fourier transform to the calibrated interferogram (paras. [0011], [0040], [0058]).
3. The system of claim 1, where the optical amplifier is an ytterbium-doped fiber amplifier (YDFA). Lipson does not show that the amplifier is an ytterbium-doped fiber amplifier. Official notice is taken that ytterbium-doped fiber amplifiers were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use an ytterbium-doped fiber amplifier for nothing more than to amplify the laser.
4. The system of claim 1, where the microresonator is a silicon nitride microresonator (para. [0060]).
5. The system of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to generate cross-sectional images having an axial resolution of 5.6 ± 1.7 µm (see Claim 25; this claim is taken to be a desired result and not that the processor has a further limiting processor than the processor of claim 1).
7. The system of claim 1, wherein the grating is a fiber Bragg grating. Lipson does not show that the grating is a fiber Bragg grating. Official notice is taken that fiber Bragg gratings were well known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to use a fiber Bragg grating for the expected result of dispersing the light.
10. (and claim 18) The system of claim 2, wherein applying noise reduction comprises applying a Gaussian moving average to the interferogram. Lipson does not show noise reduction by Gaussian moving average. Official notice is taken that it was well known to apply Gaussian moving average. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious apply a Gaussian moving average to the OCT signal in order to remove noise and improve image resolution.
Claim(s) 8, 9, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipson 471, Cense, Lipson 060, and Jang as applied to claim 2 or 15 above, and further in view of Chen et al. (2014/0241596).
Lipson 471, Cense, Lipson 060, and Jang do not show the nonlinear mapping and dispersion correction. Chen shows an OCT wherein linear and dispersion correction is performed using Hilbert transform (para. [0051]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to perform Chen’s corrections in order to improve the signal quality for a higher resolution.
Claim(s) 11-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lipson 471, Cense, Lipson 060, and Jang as applied to claim 2, 15, or 16 above, and further in view of Cable et al. (US 2014/0028997).
Lipson and Cense do not show the interferograms are apodized using a Hann or Blackman window. Cable shows an OCT wherein the interferograms are apodized using Hann or Blackman window (para. [0142]). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to apodize using Hann or Blackman window for the expected result of improving or apodizing the signal.
13. (and claim 20) The system of claim 8, wherein the wavevector phase correction is applied to the interferograms via a spline interpolation para. [0123].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Brezinski et al. (US 2013/0182259) shows an OCT with an FSR set at 100 GHz.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Hwa Andrew S Lee whose telephone number is (571)272-2419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9am-5:30pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached at 571-272-3995. 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.
/Hwa Andrew Lee/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877