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 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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for a lack of antecedent basis. Claim 16 recites the limitation "bright field", and there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1-4, 22, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2009/0054791, hereinafter “Flusberg”) in view of Serabyn et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0219999, hereinafter “Serabyn”) and Takeuchi et al (U.S Patent Application Publication 2019/0174038, hereinafter “Takeuchi”).
In regards to claim 1, Flusberg teaches an optical microendoscopy system, comprising an endoscopic probe (figure 1 element 110), the probe having a plurality of integrated fiber optics (paragraph 36 “one or more optical fibers”) for uniform illumination and an array of gradient index (GRIN) lenses (paragraph 28 “one or more GRIN lenses”). However, Flusberg fails to teach an optical microendoscopy system where the array of gradient index (GRIN) lenses are configured to capture a reflected light field from one or more on-axis sampling of the reflected light field and two or more off-axis sampling of the reflected light field.
Serabyn teaches an optical microendoscopy system where the array of gradient index (GRIN) lenses are configured to capture a reflected light field from one or more on-axis sampling of the reflected light field (paragraph 41 “although Fig. 1a shows the dual-beam off axis DHM case, this approach can also enable a single-beam in-line DMH, by instead using only a single GRIN lens”), It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope system of Flusberg with the on-axis GRIN lens in order to increase image robustness and compactness (paragraph 13) through the use of small and easily aligned GRIN lenses.
Takeuchi teaches an optical microendoscopy system where the array of gradient index (GRIN) lenses are configured to capture a reflected light field from two or more off-axis sampling of the reflected light field (paragraph 72 “the gratings 204, 205, 206 are designed in angle and pitch such that each of the gratings 204, 205, 206 will disperse light in such a way that one band of visible light will illuminate a certain angle range from the axis of rotation 208”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg as modified by Serabyn with the multiple off-axis sampling system of Takeuchi in order to maximize image field of view (as stated in the abstract).
In regards to claim 2,Flusberg and Serabyn combined with Takeuchi teach the limitations of claim 1, Takeuchi further teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein the captured reflected light field comprises 6 off-axis samples (figure 39 light directions B1, B2, G1, G2, R1, and R2 as stated in paragraph 142). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg and Serabyn with the multiple off-axis sampling system of Takeuchi in order to maximize image field of view (as stated in the abstract).
In regards to claim 3, Flusberg and Serabyn combined with Takeuchi teach the limitations of claim 1, Takeuchi further teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein the plurality of integrated fiber optics comprises 3 or more fibers embedded (paragraph 98 “three detection fibers”) within an endoscopic probe core, each having an illumination output (paragraph 98 “light from three detection fibers”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg and Serabyn with the multiple detection fiber system of Takeuchi in order to maximize image field of view (as stated in the abstract).
In regards to claim 4, Flusberg and Serabyne combined with Takeuchi teach the limitations of claim 1, Takeuchi further teaches an optical microendoscopy system of wherein each of the fiber optics comprise an illumination output at an end of the endoscopic probe, wherein the illumination outputs are distributed equally at the end of the endoscopic probe (paragraph 69 “single mode fiber” and “illumination part 203”). As this configuration consists of just one fiber with an illumination output, the outputs are understood to be distributed equally. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg and Serabyn with the single fiber and equally distributed illumination of Takeuchi in order to maximize image field of view (as stated in the abstract).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg in view of Serabyn and Takeuchi. Flusberg teaches a method of operating an optical microendoscopy system, the method comprising:
providing illumination from an end of an endoscopic probe (claim 30 of Flusberg),
the endoscopic probe having a plurality of integrated fiber optic illumination sources for uniform illumination (paragraph 36 “one or more optical fibers”)
capturing a reflected light field, for light-field imaging, through an array of gradient index (GRIN) lenses (paragraph 28 “one or more GRIN lenses”)
But fails to teach where the method includes (i) one or more on-axis sampling of the reflected light field and (ii) two or more off-axis sampling of the reflected light field and reconstructing an image via a reconstruction algorithm using (i) the one or more on-axis sampling of the reflected light field and (ii) the two or more off-axis sampling of the reflected light field.
Serabyn teaches a method of operating an optical microendoscopy system that includes one or more on-axis sampling of the reflected light field (paragraph 41), and reconstructing an image via a reconstruction algorithm using (i) the one or more on-axis sampling of the reflected light field (paragraph 55).
Takeuchi teaches a method of operating an optical microendoscopy system that includes two or more off-axis sampling of the reflected light field (paragraph 72 “the gratings 204, 205, 206 are designed in angle and pitch such that each of the gratings 204, 205, 206 will disperse light in such a way that one band of visible light will illuminate a certain angle range from the axis of rotation 208”) and reconstructing an image via a reconstruction algorithm (paragraph 68 “the detection unit 114 will send a corresponding signal to the processor 122 to reconstruct the image of the sample”) using the two or more off-axis sampling of the reflected light field. ”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope system of Flusberg with the on and off axis sampling and reconstruction methods of Serabyn and Takeuchi in order to increase image robustness and compactness (paragraph 13 of Serabyn) and maximize image field of view (abstract of Takeuchi).In regards to claim 36, Flusberg teaches an endoscopic probe (figure 1 element 110) comprising a plurality of integrated fiber optics (paragraph 36 “one or more optical fibers”) for uniform illumination and an array of gradient index (GRIN) lenses (paragraph 28 “one or more GRIN lenses”). However, Flusberg fails to teach an optical microendoscopy system where the array of gradient index (GRIN) lenses are configured to capture a reflected light field from one or more on-axis sampling of the reflected light field and two or more off-axis sampling of the reflected light field.
Serabyn teaches an endoscopic probe where the array of gradient index (GRIN) lenses are configured to capture a reflected light field from one or more on-axis sampling of the reflected light field (paragraph 41 “although Fig. 1a shows the dual-beam off axis DHM case, this approach can also enable a single-beam in-line DMH, by instead using only a single GRIN lens”), It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope system of Flusberg with the on-axis GRIN lens in order to increase image robustness and compactness (paragraph 13) through the use of small and easily aligned GRIN lenses.
Takeuchi teaches an endoscopic probe where the array of gradient index (GRIN) lenses are configured to capture a reflected light field from two or more off-axis sampling of the reflected light field (paragraph 72 “the gratings 204, 205, 206 are designed in angle and pitch such that each of the gratings 204, 205, 206 will disperse light in such a way that one band of visible light will illuminate a certain angle range from the axis of rotation 208”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg as modified by Serabyn with the multiple off-axis sampling system of Takeuchi in order to maximize image field of view (as stated in the abstract).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi in view of Phillips et al (U.S. Patent 5,926,319, hereinafter “Phillips”).
In regards to claim 5, whileFlusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi teach the limitations of claim 1, they fail to teach an optical microendoscopy system wherein the GRIN lens array comprises 6 GRIN lenses. Phillips teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein the GRIN lens array comprises 6 GRIN lenses (figure 4 and paragraph 6 “graded refractive index lenses 24” and it can be seen there are at least 6 on the microlens screen). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the 6+ GRIN lens configuration of Phillips in order to adapt the imaging apparatus to curved image collection surfaces (paragraph 22).
PNG
media_image1.png
358
366
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 6, while Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi teach the limitations of claim 1, they fail to teach an optical microendoscopy system wherein the 6 GRIN lenses are positioned in a hexagonal array at an end of the endoscopic probe, and wherein the system further includes a seventh GRIN lens at a center of the hexagonal array at the end of the endoscopic probe. Phillips teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein the 6 GRIN lenses are positioned in a hexagonal array at an end of the endoscopic probe, and wherein the system further includes a seventh GRIN lens at a center of the hexagonal array at the end of the endoscopic probe. As seen below circled in figure 4, 6 GRIN surrounding a 7th lens in a hexagon shape can be picked out from the overall array. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the 6+ GRIN lens configuration of Phillips in order to adapt the imaging apparatus to curved image collection surfaces (paragraph 22).
PNG
media_image2.png
358
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg, Serabyn, Takeuchi, and Phillips in view of Benjamin et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0086530, hereinafter “Benjamin”). While Flusberg, Serabyn, Takeuchi, and Phillips combined teach the limitations of claims 1, 5, and 6, they fail to teach an optical microendoscopy system comprising an illumination output of one of the integrated fiber optics at a center of the hexagonal array at the end of the endoscopic probe. Benjamin teaches an optical microendoscopy system comprising an illumination output (figure 5 element 62a-5 fiber optic as shown below) of one of the integrated fiber optics at a center of the hexagonal array at the end of the endoscopic probe. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, Takeuchi, and Phillips with the GRIN lens array of Benjamin in order to reduce cross talk between optical fibers (paragraph 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
294
512
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi in view of Benjamin. While Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi teach the limitations of claim 1, they fail to teach an optical microendoscopy system wherein GRIN lenses of the GRIN lens array alternate with illumination outputs of individual ones of the integrated fiber optic at an end of the endoscopic probe. Benjamin teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein GRIN lenses of the GRIN lens array alternate with illumination outputs of individual ones of the integrated fiber optic at an end of the endoscopic probe (paragraph 48 “the arrangement includes inactive or absent optical fibers”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the alternating active/inactive fiber optics of a GRIN lens array of Benjamin in order to reduce cross talk between optical fibers (paragraph 3).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi in view of Leblond et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0151055, hereinafter “Leblond”). While Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi teach the limitations of claim 1, they fail to teach an optical microendoscopy comprising an image processing unit configured to receive the reflected light field from the endoscopic probe to reconstruct an image using a ray-optics reconstruction operation. Benjamin teaches an optical microendoscopy system comprising an image processing unit configured to receive the reflected light field from the endoscopic probe to reconstruct an image using a ray-optics reconstruction operation. In paragraph 61, Benjamin states “The devices of the present disclosure may be used to detect and quantify tumor-specific endogenous or exogenous optical biomarkers (fluorescence and/or reflectance and/or inelastic scattering—i.e. Raman spectroscopy) locally or in a tomographic manner using an optical image reconstruction algorithm”, showing the presence of a reconstruction algorithm. In paragraph 100, Benjamin defines the use of Mesh Based Monte Carlo for modeling of the image, and states that this method uses “fast ray-tracing in plucker coordinates” with ray-tracing being known to be synonymous with ray optics. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope system of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the ray optics reconstruction operation of Leblond in order to reduce the risk of misdiagnosis and hemorrhages (paragraph 8).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg, Serabyn, Takeuchi, and Leblond in view of Venkataraman et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2022/0385848, hereinafter “Venkataraman”). While Flusberg, Serabyn, Takeuchi, and Leblond combined teach the elements of claims 1 and 10, and Leblond teaches the use of a ray optics reconstruction operation, they fail to teach an optical microendoscopy system wherein the image processing unit is configured to employ point-spread function (PSF) calibration. Venkataraman teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein the image processing unit is configured to employ point-spread function (PSF) calibration (paragraph 141 “The upstream pipe processing module may perform… optical PSF (point spread function) deconvolution”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, Takeuchi, and Leblond with the PSF calibration of Venkataraman in order to reduce image aberrations caused by temperature changes (paragraphs 64 and 102).
Claims 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi in view of Gregg et al (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0280526, hereinafter “Gregg”). While Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi combined teach the elements of claim 1, they fail to teach the elements of claims 13-16.
In regards to claim 13, Gregg teaches an optical microendoscopy system, wherein a first subset of the GRIN lenses in the array comprises a first property (figure 2a element 104-1 shown by the left most arrow below) and wherein a second subset (figure 2a element 104-2 shown by the right most arrow below) of the GRIN lenses in the array comprise a second property different from the first. As seen in the image below, GRIN lenses 104-1 and 104-2 are on opposite sides of optical transformation element 106, which can be made “birefringent such that orthogonal polarizations of beam 150 experience distinct transformations as beam 150 passes through optical transformation element 106”. With polarization being the differing property between GRIN lenses, it can be seen that 104-1 has a different beam polarity than 104-2. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the differing property GRIN lens system of Gregg in order to perform beam shaping to “tailor the near field of an optical field” (paragraph 4).
PNG
media_image4.png
246
461
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In regards to claim 14, Gregg teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein the first property is a first polarization and the second property is a second polarization (paragraph 48 the two polarizations as mentioned in the 103 rationale for claim 13 prior to this paragraph). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the differing property GRIN lens system of Gregg in order to perform beam shaping to “tailor the near field of an optical field” (paragraph 4).
In regards to claim 15, Gregg teaches an optical microendoscopy system further comprising a third subset of GRIN lenses comprise a third property different from the first property and the second property (paragraph 49 details a third GRIN lens placed after a second optical transformation element, meaning that lens has a polarization different from that of the first two lenses). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the differing property GRIN lens system of Gregg in order to perform beam shaping to “tailor the near field of an optical field” (paragraph 4).
In regards to claim 16, Greggs teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein the first property, the second property, and the third property are selected from polarization, fluorescence in addition to the bright field, wavelength, and time-gated light (figure 5a elements 104-1 and 104-2 are separated by optical transformation element 106-1, and 104-3 and 104-4 are separated by 106-2). With two optical transformation elements in line with the beam, GRIN lenses 104-1, 104-2, and 104-4 all have different polarities, and therefore the system contains three properties selected from polarization. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the differing property GRIN lens system of Gregg in order to perform beam shaping to “tailor the near field of an optical field” (paragraph 4).
PNG
media_image5.png
397
748
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi in view of Klootz (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2006/0041192, hereinafter “Klootz”). While Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi combined teach the elements of claim 1, they fail to teach an optical microendoscopy system wherein the integrated fiber optics comprises LED light sources. Klootz teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein the integrated fiber optics comprises LED light sources (paragraph 7 “direct light transmission from the LED into each end of each fiber optic strand”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the LED fiber optic light source of Klootz in order to provide a uniformaly distributed light pattern that does not disturb the optical view through the endoscope (paragraph 4).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi in view of Clare (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0167081, hereinafter “Clare”). While Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi combined teach the elements of claim 1, they fail to teach an optical microendoscopy system wherein the endoscopic probe comprises a Hopkins rod lens or a gradient index relay. Clare teaches an optical microendoscopy system wherein the endoscopic probe comprises a Hopkins rod lens or a gradient index relay (paragraph 9 “the beam relay comprise a Hopkins rod lens telescope”). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the Hopkins rod lens of Clare in order to facilitate instantaneous image feedback when needed during, for example, surgery (paragraph 4).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi in view of Toriya (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2005/0192480, hereinafter “Toriya”). While Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi combined teach the elements of claim 1, they fail to teach an optical microendoscopy system comprising a laser light source at an end of the endoscopic probe and a camera for receiving reflected laser light. Toriya teaches an optical microendoscopy system comprising a laser light source at an end of the endoscopic probe and a camera for receiving reflected laser light (paragraph 47). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the endoscope systems of Flusberg, Serabyn, and Takeuchi with the laser and camera configuration of Toriya in order to improve safety during operations as well as resulting therapeutic effect (paragraph 20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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.
Reasons for Allowance
The allowable subject matter found in claim 12 that has not been found to have been anticipated or taught in the prior art, in combination with the other claim limitations is as follows: “The optical microendoscopy system wherein the point-spread function (PSF) calibration involves fitting an experimental depth-dependent magnification function M(z) with a ray-optics model of magnification.” The closest pieces of prior art of reference are Leblond and Venkataraman, who respectively teach the ray optics model and the point-spread-function calibration, but both fail to teach a combination of both also involving the fitting of an experimental depth-dependent magnification function.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAYTON BARKER whose telephone number is (571)272-0912. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 7:00 am to 3:00 pm EST.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at 5712707235. 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.
/DAYTON HYUN JIN BARKER/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795