DETAILED ACTION
In response to the amendment filed on 06/04/2026, all the amendments to the claims have been entered and the action follows:
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 .
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: “units” in claims 1-10.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear and confusing whether the limitation “to synthesize each of the plurality of OCT images” refers to: a) generating a single image out of each of the OCT images, or b) generating multiple OCT images each with pixel values synthesized with each other. Please amend the claim for clarification. Similar reasons apply to claims 9 and 10.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Frisken et al. (US 2016/0345820).
Regarding claim 1, Frisken discloses:
a reception unit (see para [47], a processor) configured to receive a plurality of OCT images captured under different image-capturing conditions and represented by complex signals (see--- para [44] and [49], acquiring OCT images under varying polarization states; and see para [119], complex);
an image processing unit (see para [47], the processor) configured to perform digital refocusing by complex signal processing or digital aberration correction by the complex signal processing on each of the plurality of OCT images received by the reception unit (see para [49] and [62], enhancing each OCT image by digital refocusing or digital correction of aberrations); and
a synthesis unit (see para [47], the processor) configured to synthesize each of the plurality of OCT images on which the image processing unit has performed the digital refocusing by the complex signal processing or the digital aberration correction by the complex signal processing (see para [49] and [174], stitching the enhanced OCT images).
Regarding claim 5, Frisken further discloses: wherein each of the plurality of OCT images is captured by performing at least one of a change in a position of an objective lens, a change in a position of a specimen, or a change in an angle of the specimen with respect to an incident direction of a measuring beam to the objective lens (see para [166], moving a specimen, which reads on “a change in a position of a specimen”).
Regarding claim 7, Frisken further discloses: wherein the synthesis unit performs complex averaging or intensity and amplitude averaging based on the plurality of OCT images (see para [174], weighted averaging).
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Frisken discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1).
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 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisken in view of Liu et al. (“Aberration-diverse optical coherence tomography for suppression of multiple scattering and speckle”).
Regarding claim 2, Frisken discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1), however, does not disclose: wherein each of the plurality of OCT images is captured using an optical system having a different aberration.
In a similar field of endeavor of OCT enhancement by combining OCT images of varying capture conditions, Liu discloses: wherein each of the plurality of OCT images is captured using an optical system having a different aberration (see section 2, OCT images are captured while varying astigmatism is induced with a rotating astigmatic angle).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Frisken with Liu, and further induce varying astigmatism in the OCT images, as disclosed by Liu, for the purpose of improving ultra-deep volumetric imaging (see Liu section 6).
Regarding claim 3, Frisken and Liu further disclose: wherein each of the plurality of OCT images is captured at a different focal position or captured using an optical system having a different defocus aberration (see rejection of claim 2, varying astigmatism).
Regarding claim 4, Frisken and Liu further disclose: wherein each of the plurality of OCT images is captured at a different focal position obtained by any of: changing a distance with respect to a specimen for a measuring beam, the specimen in an incident direction to an objective lens, or the objective lens; utilizing an optical system configured to change refractive power; using an electrically controlled tunable lens; utilizing a spatial light modulator; and rotating an optical element having aberration (see rejection of claim 2, rotating astigmatic angle, which reads on “rotating an optical element having aberration”).
Claims 6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frisken in view of South et al. (“Wavefront measurement using computational adaptive optics”).
Regarding claim 6, Frisken discloses everything claimed as applied above (see rejection of claim 1), however, do not disclose: wherein the image processing unit performs any of forward-model-based refocusing, digital adaptive optics, and interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy.
In a similar field of endeavor of OCT enhancement by combining OCT images of varying capture conditions, South discloses: wherein the image processing unit performs any of forward-model-based refocusing, digital adaptive optics, and interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy (see South section 3.A, interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy; and section 3.C, forward-model based refocusing).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Frisken with South, and performing forward-model-based refocusing or interferometric synthetic aperture microscopy, as disclosed by South, for the purpose of enhancing image quality (see South Abstract).
Regarding claim 8, Frisken further discloses: wherein the synthesis unit corrects a relative phase between the plurality of OCT images and then synthesizes each of the plurality of OCT images (see para [180], subtracting relative phase).
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding 112(b)
Applicant's arguments filed 06/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The newly amended limitation “to synthesize each of the plurality of OCT images” of claim 1 still does not specify whether: i) a single image is generated out of each of the OCT images, or ii) each of the OCT images are synthesized in pixel values. The applicant merely states that the newly amended limitation overcomes the 112(b) rejection. Similar reasons apply to claims 9 and 10.
Arguments regarding the prior art rejection
Regarding claim 1, the applicant argues that Frisken does not disclose the subject matter of the claim, specifically because:
i) Frisken discloses stitching OCT images together rather than synthesizing each of the OCT images. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The Merriam-Webster dictionary provides the following definition:
to synthesize: as to combine or produce by synthesis
synthesis: the composition or combination of parts or elements so as to form a whole
The applicant acknowledges that Frisken indeed stitches multiple images. Said stitching is a way to combine multiple images to form a whole image, which fits the above definition of the limitation “synthesize”.
ii) Frisken does not disclose that the multiple images to be stitched together have gone through digital refocusing or digital aberration correction. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Frisken para [157] states that “digital refocusing can be applied directly to lateral points at the centre of the snapshot datasets, so as to avoid refocusing stitched datasets”, describing how such digital refocusing is applied to datasets prior to stitching them together.
Therefore, Frisken discloses applying enhancement (i.e., digital refocusing) to multiple OCT images that are to be stitched together (i.e., synthesized), which reads on the claimed limitation “to synthesize each of the plurality of OCT images on which the image processing unit has performed the digital refocusing by the complex signal processing or the digital aberration correction by the complex signal processing”. Similar reasons apply to claims 9 and 10.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SJ PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-3569. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, ANDREW MOYER can be reached at 571-272-9523. 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.
/SJ Park/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2675
Prosecution Insights