DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. Applicant has canceled claim 10 in a preliminary amendment. Currently, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are pending. Examiner refers to the action below.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claim limitations “an acquiring module configured to acquire time domain….,” “a scale-transforming module configured to….,” “a frequency domain transforming module configured to…..,” “a decorrelation module configured to divide…..,” “a fusion module configured to obtain…..,” and “an imaging module configured to…..” have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 8 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
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, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (CN 108245130 B, will be further referred to as Gao) and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 110101362 B, will be further referred to as Yang).
Regarding claim 1: Gao discloses a method for optical coherence tomography angiography (Gao; “The invention is based on the optical coherence tomography angiography device of optical coherence tomographic angiography method”), comprising:
acquiring time domain signals of a target area, the time domain signals being N interference spectrum signals obtained by repeating A-scans on the target area N times (Gao; “step 1, because the sampling frequency affects the imaging quality, according to sampling frequency resolution determined system transverse B-scanning direction, the average distance between two continuous A scan is transverse resolution of about 1/3, too large will cause the micro-vessel image blurring, too small will reduce the vibration mirror scanning speed”);
performing Fourier transform on each of the scale-transformed signals and taking a logarithm, to obtain an axial frequency domain signal in a logarithmic space, and denoising the axial frequency domain signal (Gao; “step 4, carrying out Fourier transform reconstruction sample for each A scan signal of the complex analytic signal, and then by calculating a log-scale intensity difference signal in the depth direction standard deviation for reconstructing 3 D micro-flow distribution, specifically as follows: (1) collected by the OCT system of the interference signal to the fast Fourier transform to obtain 3D OCT data. the two times at each transverse position B (2j-1 frame and 2j frame) logarithmic scale intensity signal by subtracting to obtain difference image, the approach 0 wherein the static signal, the dynamic signal is far more than 0, difference image formula is as follows:”);
obtaining a multi-scale blood flow signal based on k sets of the single-scale blood flow signals; and obtaining a blood flow image based on the multi-scale blood flow signal (Gao; step 4, carrying out Fourier transform reconstruction sample for each A scan signal of the complex analytic signal, and then by calculating a log-scale intensity difference signal in the depth direction standard deviation for reconstructing 3 D micro-flow distribution”). Gao does not discloses “performing scale transform on respective interference spectrum signals in the N interference spectrum signals based on k scales, to obtain N X k scale-transformed signals; wherein performing scale transform on any interference spectrum signal based on the k scales comprises: decomposing the any interference spectrum signal based on each of the k scales, to obtain k scale-transformed signals corresponding to the any interference spectrum signal” nor teaches “dividing, based on the k scales, N X k of the axial frequency domain signals denoised into k sets of single-scale signals, and performing decorrelation calculation on each set of the single- scale signals to obtain single-scale blood flow signals.” Yang teaches the features of “performing scale transform on respective interference spectrum signals in the N interference spectrum signals based on k scales, to obtain N X k scale-transformed signals; wherein performing scale transform on any interference spectrum signal based on the k scales comprises: decomposing the any interference spectrum signal based on each of the k scales, to obtain k scale-transformed signals corresponding to the any interference spectrum signal” and “dividing, based on the k scales, N X k of the axial frequency domain signals denoised into k sets of single-scale signals, and performing decorrelation calculation on each set of the single- scale signals to obtain single-scale blood flow signals” (Yang; “As a preference, the wavelet decomposition in the step S1-0 to the maximum time of L wherein, in the step S1-1, the horizontal sub-band image comprises the stripe information [AltContent: rect]performing two-dimensional Fourier transform to obtain the frequency-domain image, wavelet transform and Fourier filter are combined to construct a fast, strong, stable image horizontal stripe cancellation filter, a micro performing strict separation between the artifact and the original characteristic, not only, but also capable of inhibiting structure does not need height stores original image information; As a preference, the step S1-0 comprises: step S1-0-1, performing non-down-sampling wave contour decomposition to obtain the high-pass sub-band image and the low-pass sub-band image, step S1-0-2, m times the low-pass sub-band image non-down-sampling wave contour decomposition, to obtain m high frequency sub-band image, step S1-0-3, the m number of high frequency sub-band image processing non-down sampling directional filter bank decomposition, to obtain a horizontal subband image and vertical subband image wherein, in the step S1-1, the horizontal sub-band image comprises the stripe information performing two-dimensional Fourier transform to obtain the frequency-domain image. the non-down-sampling wave contour wavelet denoising and vascular saving aspect has the best performance. a preference, the step S2 comprises: step S2-1, the zero frequency point of the frequency domain image moves to the middle of the spectrum, step S2-2, multiplied by the Gaussian damping function, step S2-3, reducing the zero frequency point.”). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art to combine Yang to the disclosure of Gao since they are analogous in the field of OCT. One ordinary skilled in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the teaching of Yang into the disclosure of Gao in order to remove noise/artifacts from the OCT images.
Regarding claim 8: See claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 9: Gao discloses an electronic device, characterized in that it comprises:
one or more processors; and a memory (Gao; fig. 1);
wherein one or more computer programs are stored in the memory and configured to be executed by the one or more processors, and the one or more computer programs are configured to execute the method for optical coherence tomography angiography of claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection).
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 2-7 and 11-16 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Contact Information
8. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANAND BHATNAGAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7416. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30am-4:00pm.
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, Vu Le can be reached on 571-272-4650. 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 applications 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 Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANAND P BHATNAGAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2668 April 30, 2026
Prosecution Insights