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 were received on May 11, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejections under 35 USC 112. The rejections under 35 USC 112 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 17, 19, 25, 26, 34, 35, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellen et al. (US 2020/0268312 A1), hereinafter “Yellen”, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art, hereinafter “AAPA”.
Regarding claim 1, Yellen discloses a characterization system (abstract, Fig. 16) comprising:
a stationary unit (Fig. 16, ref console) optically connected to a probe unit (ref probe, paragraph [0170] states that “the line may also be rotated by changing the positioning of the probe itself”, which is interpreted as the probe unit being a rotary unit),
wherein the probe unit comprises a first optical channel (any of refs 1623A, 1622, 1612, 1621), a second optical channel (any of refs 1606, 1616, 1613, 1614, 1608, 1612, 1621) and a first detector (ref 1624),
wherein the stationary unit comprises a second detector (ref 1618), and
wherein the first optical channel is optically connected to the first detector for detecting light for a first characterization modality (paragraph [0229] “backscattered from the tissue was imaged”) and the second optical channel is optically connected to the second detector (ref 1618) for detecting light for a second characterization modality (paragraphs [0217], [0228], “a spectrometer for measuring a distinct spectral band in the backscatter light, a CCD camera for capturing a single-shot image of the backscattered light against the contrast background”).
Yellen is silent regarding a rotary unit configured to rotate during operation, the stationary unit connected to the rotary unit via a fiber optic rotary joint (FORJ), and wherein the probe unit is the rotary unit.
However, AAPA teaches a conventional OCT (e.g., optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI)) imaging system/apparatus (Fig 1) including a rotary unit configured to rotate during operation (ref 118), the stationary unit (ref 100) connected to the rotary unit via a fiber optic rotary joint (FORJ) (ref 112), and wherein the probe unit is the rotary unit (ref 116).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Yellen with the teaching of AAPA by including a rotary unit configured to rotate during operation, the stationary unit connected to the rotary unit via a fiber optic rotary joint (FORJ), and wherein the probe unit is the rotary unit in order to measure the inside walls of a sample, as allowing the probe of Yellen to rotate 360° allows full imaging of the inside of, for example, a cylindrical sample.
Regarding claim 2, Yellen discloses two light sources (refs 1602, 1620) wherein the two light sources are optically connected to the second optical channel to provide illumination from the two light sources through the second optical channel (both light sources pass through refs 1621, 1612, 1629, which is part of the second optical channel).
Regarding claim 4, Yellen discloses two light sources (refs 1602, 1620) wherein only a first light source of the two light sources is optically connected to the second optical channel to provide illumination from the first light source(ref 1602 only is connected to refs 1604, 1606, 1616, 1613, 1614, 1608).
Regarding claim 5, Yellen discloses wherein the rotary unit comprises a third optical channel and only a second light source of the two light sources is optically connected to the third optical channel (any of refs 1623A, 1623B, 1622, 1623A are a channel that only light from source 1620 passes).
Regarding claim 10, Yellen discloses wherein the first optical channel is also optically connected to the second detector (light from ref 1612, 1621 passes to detector ref 1618).
Regarding claim 11, Yellen discloses wherein the first optical channel comprises a single mode waveguide (paragraph [0068])and the second optical channel comprises a multimode waveguide (paragraph [0067]) or wherein the first optical channel comprises a multimode waveguide and the second optical channel comprises a single mode waveguide (paragraphs [0067]-[0068]).
Regarding claim 13, Yellen discloses wherein the rotary unit comprises a wireless transmitter operable to wirelessly transmit data corresponding to a signal detected by the first detector (paragraph [0127]).
Regarding claim 17, Yellen discloses wherein the rotary unit further comprises an information storage device operable to store data corresponding to a signal detected by the first detector (paragraph [0229]; a CCD camera inherently contains RAM in order to serve as a high speed buffer)
Regarding claim 19, Yellen discloses wherein the rotary unit comprises a circuit operable to process a signal detected by the first detector prior to transmission (paragraph [0229]; a CCD camera inherently contains a circuit in order to process the image).
Regarding claim 25, Yellen discloses wherein (i) the first characterization modality is optical coherence tomography, reflectance imaging, visible spectroscopy, NIRS, or Raman spectroscopy; (ii) the second optical channel is an illumination channel for the second characterization modality, which is different from the first characterization modality, and the second characterization modality is optical coherence tomography, reflectance imaging, visible spectroscopy, NIRS, or Raman spectroscopy; or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (paragraphs [0130], [0228]).
Regarding claim 26, Yellen discloses wherein the first optical channel is comprised in a first characterization modality subsystem for the first characterization modality and the second optical channel is comprised in a second characterization modality subsystem for the second characterization modality, which is different than the first characterization modality (paragraphs [0228]-[0229]).
Regarding claim 34, Yellen discloses wherein the first optical channel is a collection channel for the first characterization modality (refs 1622, 1623A, etc.) and the second optical channel is an illumination channel for at least the first characterization modality (refs 1616, 1613, 1614, etc; paragraphs [0228]-[0229]).
Regarding claim 35, Yellen discloses a third optical channel (refs 1623B, 1623A) wherein the rotary unit comprises a light source (ref 1620) optically connected to the third optical channel (as shown in Fig. 16).
Regarding claim 39, Yellen discloses wherein the rotary unit comprises an interconnect and wherein the first optical channel and the second optical channel are optically connected to the interconnect (ref 1612, paragraph [0228]).
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 14, 15, 25, 26, 34, 39, 50, and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bec et al. (US 2023/0172443 A1), hereinafter “Bec”, and further in view of Applicant Admitted Prior Art, hereinafter “AAPA”.
Regarding claim 1, Bec discloses a characterization system (abstract, Fig. 1) comprising:
a stationary unit (Fig. 1, ref 123) optically connected to a probe unit (ref 122, paragraph [0030]; however, motor drive 122 includes a “rotary collimator” 124),
wherein the rotary unit comprises a first optical channel (any of refs 108, 102, 103, 101, 102, 104, 110, 105, 106, 113, 114, 115, 116), a second optical channel (any of ref 111, 112, 127, 113, 114, 115, 116) and a first detector (refs 132, 133, 134, paragraph [0036]),
wherein the stationary unit comprises a second detector (ref 126, paragraph [0034]), and
wherein the first optical channel is optically connected to the first detector for detecting light for a first characterization modality (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]) and the second optical channel is optically connected to the second detector for detecting light for a second characterization modality (paragraph [0034]).
Yellen is silent regarding a rotary unit configured to rotate during operation, the stationary unit connected to the rotary unit via a fiber optic rotary joint (FORJ), and wherein the probe unit is the rotary unit.
However, AAPA teaches a conventional OCT (e.g., optical frequency domain imaging (OFDI)) imaging system/apparatus (Fig 1) including a rotary unit configured to rotate during operation (ref 118), the stationary unit (ref 100) connected to the rotary unit via a fiber optic rotary joint (FORJ) (ref 112), and wherein the probe unit is the rotary unit (ref 116).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Yellen with the teaching of AAPA by including a rotary unit configured to rotate during operation, the stationary unit connected to the rotary unit via a fiber optic rotary joint (FORJ), and wherein the probe unit is the rotary unit in order to measure the inside walls of a sample, as allowing the probe of Yellen to rotate 360° allows full imaging of the inside of, for example, a cylindrical sample.
Regarding claim 2, Bec discloses two light sources (ref 128, 126, paragraphs [0034]-[0035]) wherein the two light sources are optically connected to the second optical channel to provide illumination from the two light sources through the second optical channel (both light sources pass through refs 113, 114, 115, 116, which is part of the second optical channel).
Regarding claim 4, Bec discloses comprising two light sources (ref 128, 126, paragraphs [0034]-[0035]) wherein only a first light source of the two light sources is optically connected to the second optical channel to provide illumination from the first light source (ref 126 only passes through ref 111, 112, 127).
Regarding claim 5, Bec discloses wherein the rotary unit comprises a third optical channel and only a second light source of the two light sources is optically connected to the third optical channel (refs 101 and 102 or refs 103 and 104 or refs 105 and 106 are a channel that only light from source 128 passes).
Regarding claim 10, Bec discloses wherein the first optical channel is also optically connected to the second detector (light from ref 116, 115, 114 passes to detector ref 126).
Regarding claim 14, Bec discloses wherein the rotary unit comprises an electrical transmitter operable to electrically transmit data corresponding to a signal detected by the first detector (paragraphs [0035]-[0036]).
Regarding claim 15, Bec discloses wherein the rotary unit is operable to transmit data corresponding to a signal detected by the first detector during rotation of the rotary unit (paragraphs [0035]-[0036], furthermore, the recitation “during rotation of the rotary unit” is a functional limitation that does not change the structure of the rotary unit. The examiner suggests an amendment “rotary unit configured to”).
Regarding claim 25, Bec discloses wherein (i) the first characterization modality is optical coherence tomography, reflectance imaging, visible spectroscopy, NIRS, or Raman spectroscopy; (ii) the second optical channel is an illumination channel for the second characterization modality, which is different from the first characterization modality, and the second characterization modality is optical coherence tomography, reflectance imaging, visible spectroscopy, NIRS, or Raman spectroscopy; or (iii) both (i) and (ii) (paragraph [0034]).
Regarding claim 26, Bec discloses wherein the first optical channel is comprised in a first characterization modality subsystem for the first characterization modality and the second optical channel is comprised in a second characterization modality subsystem for the second characterization modality, which is different than the first characterization modality (paragraphs [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 34, Bec discloses wherein the first optical channel is a collection channel for the first characterization modality (refs 108, 109, etc.) and the second optical channel is an illumination channel for at least the first characterization modality (refs 111, 112, etc.; paragraphs [0034]-[0035]).
Regarding claim 39, Bec discloses wherein the rotary unit comprises an interconnect and wherein the first optical channel and the second optical channel are optically connected to the interconnect (refs 121, 114, 115, 116, paragraph [0030]).
Regarding claim 50, Bec discloses wherein the rotary unit rotates at greater than 3,500 rpm, greater than 5,000 rpm, or greater than 6,000 rpm during operation (paragraph [0031], a rotary collimator can rotate at the claimed speeds, however, the recitation is a non-limiting function that does not change the structure of the device).
Regarding claim 52, Bec discloses wherein the at least one of the first characterization modality or the second characterization modality comprises a characterization sensitivity of greater than 100 dB(paragraph [0017], polarization sensitive optical coherence tomography (PS-OCT) imaging has a sensitivity greater than 100 dB).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellen and AAPA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 8953911 B1), hereinafter “Xu”.
Regarding claim 12, Yellen teaches wherein at least one of the first optical channel or the second optical channel comprises a waveguide within the rotary unit (as shown in Fig. 16, probe) but is silent regarding one or more than one optical waveguide connected in series.
However, Xu teaches a rotating imaging probe (abstract) including one or more than one optical waveguide connected in series (refs 12b, 100a, 100b, col. 15, lines 1-39).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yellen with the teaching of Xu by including wherein at least one of the first optical channel and the second optical channel comprises more than one optical waveguide connected in series within the rotary unit in order to efficiently couple the light between the devices.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yellen and AAPA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tearney et al. (US 2021/0161373 A1), hereinafter “Tearney”.
Regarding claim 18, Yellen is silent regarding wherein the rotary unit further comprises an energy storage device to provide power.
However, Tearney teaches a detachable optical probe (abstract, Fig. 2) including wherein the rotary unit further comprises an energy storage device to provide power (paragraph [0064]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the device of Yellen with the teaching of Tearney by including wherein the rotary unit further comprises an energy storage device to provide power in order to operate the probe wirelessly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Namati (US 2014/0309527) Graf (US 2014/0343410) teach a probe with a multichannel Fiber Optic Rotary Junction (FORJ).
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 DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Kara E Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights