DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment
1- The amendment filed on 06/09/2026 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. New claims 15-21 have been added.
Election/Restrictions
2- Newly submitted claims 15-16, 20 and 21 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons:
The Invention originally filed (claims 1-14) and the invention of new claims 15-16, 20 and 21 are directed to an apparatus and process and as related processes, respectively. The related inventions are distinct if: (1) the inventions as claimed are either not capable of use together or can have a materially different design, mode of operation, function, or effect; (2) the inventions do not overlap in scope, i.e., are mutually exclusive; and (3) the inventions as claimed are not obvious variants. See MPEP § 806.05(j). In the instant case, the process inventions as claimed have different modes of operation. The newly filed invention pertains possibly to an optical filtering in the laser cavity, which means a materially different design than the invention of new claims 15-16, 20 and 21, which requires a filtering of the electrical signal from the detector and all its distinct needed electronics. Therefore, the inventions are mutually exclusive, respectively.
Furthermore, the inventions as claimed do not encompass overlapping subject matter and there is nothing of record to show them to be obvious variants.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 15-16, 20 and 21 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
Response to Arguments
3- Applicants’ arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of the pending claims have been fully considered but are found not persuasive.
4- Applicants argue in their response (pp. 1-3) that Yun fails to teach modulating injection current to the gain chip, based on the power of the output beam (Claim 7) to reduce relative intensity noise (claims 1 and 7).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicants and submits that in Col/ll. 10/33-40, 11/4-14, 14/12-20 and 59-66, that based on the ASE source average power, i.e. output beam, RIN is being evaluated during the pulsing of the laser, i.e. modulation, and its power generating injected current, to avoid degradation of the SNR, i.e. reduction of all noises including RIN, as suggested in Col/ll. 3/9-20. Also, nothing in the claims pertains to a total or substantial suppression of RIN and only a reduction of noise is considered
As to claim 4, and the feed back signal, Yun teaches using a reference signal of which the measurements are used to monitor the generated light from the source, i.e. a feed back signal for control (Col/ll. 12/17-55 in addition to 8/616, 14/18-20 for ex.)
As to claim 13, and despite the criticality thermally sensitive spectral responses of its pulses lasers, Yun does not disclose the need to any cooling systems because it relays mostly on its efficient current injection system/method to optimally control the laser output characteristics (Col/ll. 3/8-4/13, 10/33-40, 11/4-14, 14/12-20 and 59-66).
As to claims 6/12, Yun teaches Col/ll. 13/64-14/8 using theoretical curves of spectrally based output powers according to equation (1) in their controlling of the pulsing power.
As to claim 14, please to consider the response to arguments about claims 1, 4 here above.
For at least these reasons, the previous rejections are here maintained.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
5- 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.
6- 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:
Noise suppression mechanism in claims 1, 6.
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 § 102
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 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 (MPEP 706.02(m)).
7- 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.
8- Claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yun et al. (US Patent No. 7365859).
As to claims 1-2, 4, 6-8, 10, 12, Yun teaches an optical coherence tomography system, and its method of use (Abstract, Figs. 3-10-15), comprising: a swept-source laser (500/502/504) having a gain chip (necessary to any solid-state or diode laser, such as 320 in Figs. 4, 6) and tuning mechanism in a laser cavity (Figs. 6 and/or Col/ll. 4/14-35, 7/44-59 for ex.); an interferometer (Fig. 10, 10%/90% interferometer) receiving laser light from the swept-source laser and having a sample arm (from 534 to sample 550 and back) and a reference arm (from 534 to 540 and back); a line-scan camera (570/572) for detecting interference patterns formed by combining light from the reference arm and the sample arm (combined at coupler 534 and directed towards 520 then camera 570/572); a controller (582/584) for generating and processing the interference patterns to form OCT images (Col/ll. 12/10-41 and 56-67); and a noise suppression mechanism for reducing relative intensity noise by modulating an injection current to the gain chip (Col/ll. 10/33-40, 11/4-14, 14/12-20 and 59-66);
(Claims 2/8) further comprising a bandpass filter in the laser cavity for tuning the swept-source laser (Col/ll. 9/5-11, 11/42-50 for ex.);
(Claims 4/10) wherein the noise suppression mechanism (510) includes a detector for detecting light from the swept-source laser for feedback to control the injection current (Col/ll. 12/17-55 for ex.)
(Claims 6/12) wherein the noise suppression mechanism further controls the injection current based on a power reference curve during a wavelength sweep of the swept-source laser (Col/ll. 13/64-14/8).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9- 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 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
10- Claims 3, 5, 9, 11, 13-14, 17-19 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yun.
As to claims 3/9, 5/11, Yun teaches the system as claimed in claim 2 and the method as claimed claim 8.
Yun does not teach expressly wherein the bandpass filter is tilt tuned; (Claims 5/11) wherein the injection current is modulated using a proportional-integral-derivative controller.
However, one PHOSITA would find the tilt tuned filter species in tuned solid-state or semiconductor lasers, and the proportional-integral-derivative controller species in lasers electronic modulation as obvious, given the limited genus of such spectral filters and the limited genus of electronic modulation controllers (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus/method of Yun so that the bandpass filter is tilt tuned; wherein the injection current is modulated using a proportional-integral-derivative controller, with the advantage of effectively and cost-effectively optimizing the spectral output of the laser.
As to claim 13, Yun teaches an optical coherence tomography system comprising: a swept-source laser having a gain chip and tuning mechanism in a laser cavity; an interferometer having a sample arm and a reference arm; a line-scan camera for detecting interference patterns formed by combining light from the reference arm and the sample arm; and a controller for generating and processing the interference patterns to form OCT images (see rejection of claim 1).
Yun does not teach expressly wherein the gain chip is operated coolerless with no thermoelectric cooler.
However, and since this is a broad negative limitation, one PHOSITA could consider Yun to teach it, as no cooling mechanisms is disclosed, and not needed for its efficient and pulsed laser sources, which are efficiently modulated by current injection (Col/ll. 3/8-4/13, 10/33-40, 11/4-14, 14/12-20 and 59-66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus/method of Yun so that the gain chip is operated coolerless with no thermoelectric cooler, with the advantage of cost-effectively optimizing the performance of the laser.
As to claims 14, 19, Yun teaches an optical coherence tomography system comprising: a swept-source laser having a gain chip and tuning mechanism in a laser cavity; an interferometer receiving laser light from the swept-source laser and having a sample arm and a reference arm; a line-scan camera for detecting interference patterns formed by combining light from the reference arm and the sample arm; a beam splitter receiving light in free space from the swept-source laser (Figs. 8, 10); a detector for detecting light from the beam splitter (Fig. 10); wherein an injection current driver for modulating an injection current to the gain chip based on the response of the detector (Col/ll. 3/8-4/13, 10/33-40, 11/4-14, 14/12-20 and 59-66).
Yun does not teach expressly wherein the injection current driver is a ridge injection current driver; (claim 19) wherein the noise suppression mechanism comprises a ridge injection current driver that provides the injection current to a ridge of the gain chip.
However, one PHOSITA would find the ridge injection current driver species as obvious, given the limited genus of such solid state or semiconductor injection current drivers (See MPEP 2144.08 II A- 4(a). Sections 4 (c-e) can also be considered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to use the apparatus/method of Yun so that the injection current driver is a ridge injection current driver; wherein the noise suppression mechanism comprises a ridge injection current driver that provides the injection current to a ridge of the gain chip, with the advantage of effectively optimizing the performance of the laser.
As to claim 17, Yun teaches the system as claimed in claim 1, wherein wherein the line-scan camera detects the interference patterns at a line rate (Col/ll. 3/8-27; readout rate of camera), and the modulating of the injection current is performed by a feedback control loop that could be construed as having a repetition rate bandwidth/frequency of 10 Mhz to 1 Ghz which is higher, i.e. at least 10% of the readout rate, line rate of the camera of about 0.1 kHz- 0.1 MHz (Col/ll. 6/25-47 for ex.)
As to claim 18, Yun teaches the system as claimed in claim 6, wherein the power reference curve increases power to the gain chip in a center of the wavelength sweep relative to a start and an end of the wavelength sweep and approximates a Hanning, Hamming, or Gaussian window (Col/ll. 11/33-65; with a Gaussian profile, construed as a window approximation, the power of laser of the reference and signal arms increases from the edge to the central/middle peak/wavelength of the lasing tuning range).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record in the body of this action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. Applicant should consider the entire prior art as applicable as to the limitations of the claims. It is respectfully requested from the applicant, in preparing the response, to consider fully the entire references as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED AMARA whose telephone number is (571)272-7847. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 9:00-17:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached on (571)272-2287. 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.
/Mohamed K AMARA/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights