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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 5/21/2025 and 7/2/2024 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
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 1-17 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, cited term of “….with substantially equal data acquisition time interval.” (line 11-12) is vague and renders the claims indefinite. The term “substantially” does not define a range/scope of the time interval. It is not defined in instant specification disclosure and does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, further one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-17 are rejected as containing the deficiencies of claim 1 through their dependency from claim 1.
Therefore proper amendments are required in order to clarify the scopes of the claims and overcome the rejections.
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 1-3, 7-8 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takano et al (WO 2017119437, US equivalent US 20190380588, all the line numbers listed below are in the US equivalent).
Regarding Claim 1, Takano teaches an ophthalmic imaging apparatus (abstract; figs. 1-5) comprising:
a data acquiring unit including an optical coherence tomography scanner (fig. 1, 10, 70, 71; fig. 2, 10, 100--OCT optical system, 106--measurement optical system, 108--optical scanner; ¶[0043], line 1-10, The measurement optical system 106 may include, for example, a scan unit (for example, an optical scanner) 108; the CPU 71 controls an operation of the scan unit 108, based on the set scan position information) configured to acquire a plurality of pieces of time-course data respectively corresponding to a plurality of scan points in a plurality of regions of an eye (figs. 4 and 5, Et -fundus of eye, SL1-Sln; T1-T4, F1-F4) by repetitively applying an A-scan to each of the plurality of scan points, the A-scan being a one dimensional scan along a depth direction (abstract, line 1-5, An OCT signal processing device has an acquisition unit for acquiring three or more OCT signals being temporally different from each other with respect to the same position on a subject; ¶[0044], line 1-6, In a case of a Fourier domain OCT, a spectral intensity of the interference light is detected by the detector 120, and a depth profile (A scan signal) in a predetermined range is acquired by Fourier transform on the spectral intensity data);
processing circuitry (fig. 1, 70- control unit, 71-CPU, 72-ROM, 73-RAM, 74-storage unit, 75-display, 76-operation unit) configured as an image constructing unit to construct a plurality of motion contrast images respectively from the plurality of pieces of time-course data (abstract; line 1-13, The calculation unit selects two or more sets of OCT signals having different time interval between the OCT signals among sets obtained by extracting a plurality of OCT signals out of the three or more OCT signals, and calculates motion contrast for each of the selected two or more sets), and construct a wide area motion construct image of the eye by combining the plurality of motion contrast images (fig. 7, motion contrast Pm1 (P1-P6); fig. 8A-B: examples of motion contrast images); and
the processing circuitry is further configured as a controller (fig. 1, 70, 71. 76) to control the data acquiring unit to acquire each of the plurality of pieces of time-course data with substantially equal data acquisition time interval (¶[0030], line 1-2, The acquisition unit may acquire OCT signals sequentially detected at a constant time interval; ¶[0075], line 1-5, the CPU 71 selects a plurality of OCT signals from, for example, a plurality of OCT signals sequentially detected during scan at a constant time interval regardless of a temporal sequence, and calculates the motion contrast of the selected set; ¶[0080], line 1-6, The CPU 71 can acquire the motion contrast at a plurality of time intervals by using the OCT signal detected at a constant scan time interval. That is, since the time interval changes depending on each set, a blood vessel with different blood flow velocities can be detected as motion contrast).
Regarding Claim 2, Takano teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control the data acquiring unit to acquire the plurality of pieces of time-course data with the substantially equal data acquisition time interval by causing a length of a route of a scan performed from A-scan application to a scan point of the plurality of scan points to subsequent A-scan application to a same scan point to be constant (¶[0030], line 1-2, The acquisition unit may acquire OCT signals sequentially detected at a constant time interval; ¶[0075], line 1-5, the CPU 71 selects a plurality of OCT signals from, for example, a plurality of OCT signals sequentially detected during scan at a constant time interval regardless of a temporal sequence, and calculates the motion contrast of the selected set; ¶[0080], line 1-6, The CPU 71 can acquire the motion contrast at a plurality of time intervals by using the OCT signal detected at a constant scan time interval. That is, since the time interval changes depending on each set, a blood vessel with different blood flow velocities can be detected as motion contrast).
Regarding Claim 3, Takano teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 2, wherein the plurality of regions includes regions having mutually different shapes and/or sizes (abstract; line 1-13, The calculation unit selects two or more sets of OCT signals having different time interval between the OCT signals among sets obtained by extracting a plurality of OCT signals out of the three or more OCT signals, and calculates motion contrast for each of the selected two or more sets).
Regarding Claim 7, Takano teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 1, wherein the controller is further configured to control the data acquiring unit to acquire the plurality of pieces of time-course data with the substantially equal data acquisition time interval (¶[0030], line 1-2, The acquisition unit may acquire OCT signals sequentially detected at a constant time interval; ¶[0075], line 1-5, the CPU 71 selects a plurality of OCT signals from, for example, a plurality of OCT signals sequentially detected during scan at a constant time interval regardless of a temporal sequence, and calculates the motion contrast of the selected set; ¶[0080], line 1-6, The CPU 71 can acquire the motion contrast at a plurality of time intervals by using the OCT signal detected at a constant scan time interval. That is, since the time interval changes depending on each set, a blood vessel with different blood flow velocities can be detected as motion contrast),
by performing adjustment of arrangement of the plurality of scan points (--the portion of claim is of a product-by-process claim, for product-by-process claim even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). See MPEP 2113.).
Regarding Claim 8, Takano teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 7, wherein the controller is further configured to perform the adjustment of the arrangement of the plurality of scan points such that scan point intervals are different between scan lines (abstract; line 1-13, The calculation unit selects two or more sets of OCT signals having different time interval between the OCT signals among sets obtained by extracting a plurality of OCT signals out of the three or more OCT signals, and calculates motion contrast for each of the selected two or more sets).
Regarding Claim 14, Takano teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 7, wherein density of the plurality of scan points is uneven (¶[0080], line 1-12, The CPU 71 can acquire the motion contrast at a plurality of time intervals by using the OCT signal detected at a constant scan time interval. That is, since the time interval changes depending on each set, a blood vessel with different blood flow velocities can be detected as motion contrast. For example, if the time interval is short (--more scan points), a blood vessel in which blood flows fast is detected, and if the time interval is long (--less scan points), a blood vessel in which blood flows slowly is detected).
Regarding Claim 15, Takano teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 14, wherein the density of the plurality of scan points is determined based on at least one of a position of eye tissue and a position of a lesion (fig. 8A-B: examples of motion contrast images of eyes; ¶[0080], line 1-12, The CPU 71 can acquire the motion contrast at a plurality of time intervals by using the OCT signal detected at a constant scan time interval. That is, since the time interval changes depending on each set, a blood vessel with different blood flow velocities can be detected as motion contrast. For example, if the time interval is short (--more scan points), a blood vessel in which blood flows fast is detected, and if the time interval is long (--less scan points), a blood vessel in which blood flows slowly is detected).
Regarding Claim 16, Takano teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 15, wherein the density of the plurality of scan points is higher in a site of interest of the eye than in other sites (¶[0080], line 1-12, The CPU 71 can acquire the motion contrast at a plurality of time intervals by using the OCT signal detected at a constant scan time interval. That is, since the time interval changes depending on each set, a blood vessel with different blood flow velocities can be detected as motion contrast. For example, if the time interval is short (--more scan points), a blood vessel in which blood flows fast is detected, and if the time interval is long (--less scan points), a blood vessel in which blood flows slowly is detected).
Regarding Claim 17, Takano teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 15, wherein the density of the plurality of scan points is higher in a lesion of the eye than in other sites (¶[0080], line 1-12, The CPU 71 can acquire the motion contrast at a plurality of time intervals by using the OCT signal detected at a constant scan time interval. That is, since the time interval changes depending on each set, a blood vessel with different blood flow velocities can be detected as motion contrast. For example, if the time interval is short (--more scan points), a blood vessel in which blood flows fast is detected, and if the time interval is long (--less scan points), a blood vessel in which blood flows slowly is detected).
Regarding Claim 18, Takano teaches a method of ophthalmic optical coherence tomography (abstract; figs. 1-5), comprising:
acquiring a plurality of pieces of time-course data respectively corresponding to a plurality of scan points in a plurality of regions of an eye (fig. 1, 10, 70, 71; fig. 2, 10, 100--OCT optical system, 106--measurement optical system, 108--optical scanner; figs. 4 and 5, Et -fundus of eye, SL1-Sln; T1-T4, F1-F4) by repetitively applying an A-scan to each of the plurality of scan points using an optical coherence tomography scanner, the A-scan being a one dimensional scan along a depth direction (abstract, line 1-5, An OCT signal processing device has an acquisition unit for acquiring three or more OCT signals being temporally different from each other with respect to the same position on a subject; ¶[0044], line 1-6, In a case of a Fourier domain OCT, a spectral intensity of the interference light is detected by the detector 120, and a depth profile (A scan signal) in a predetermined range is acquired by Fourier transform on the spectral intensity data); and
each of the plurality of pieces of time-course data being acquired with substantially equal data acquisition time interval (¶[0030], line 1-2, The acquisition unit may acquire OCT signals sequentially detected at a constant time interval; ¶[0075], line 1-5, the CPU 71 selects a plurality of OCT signals from, for example, a plurality of OCT signals sequentially detected during scan at a constant time interval regardless of a temporal sequence, and calculates the motion contrast of the selected set; ¶[0080], line 1-6, The CPU 71 can acquire the motion contrast at a plurality of time intervals by using the OCT signal detected at a constant scan time interval. That is, since the time interval changes depending on each set, a blood vessel with different blood flow velocities can be detected as motion contrast);
constructing a plurality of motion contrast images respectively from the plurality of pieces of time-course data (abstract; line 1-13, The calculation unit selects two or more sets of OCT signals having different time interval between the OCT signals among sets obtained by extracting a plurality of OCT signals out of the three or more OCT signals, and calculates motion contrast for each of the selected two or more sets); and
constructing a wide area motion construct image of the eye by combining the plurality of motion contrast images (fig. 7, motion contrast Pm1 (P1-P6); fig. 8A-B: examples of motion contrast images).
Regarding Claim 19, Takano teaches the method of claim 18, wherein each of the plurality of pieces of time-course data is acquired with the substantially equal data acquisition time interval by controlling the optical coherence tomography scanner to cause a length of a route of a scan performed from A-scan application to a scan point of the plurality of scan points to subsequent A-scan application to a same scan point to be constant (¶[0030], line 1-2, The acquisition unit may acquire OCT signals sequentially detected at a constant time interval; ¶[0075], line 1-5, the CPU 71 selects a plurality of OCT signals from, for example, a plurality of OCT signals sequentially detected during scan at a constant time interval regardless of a temporal sequence, and calculates the motion contrast of the selected set; ¶[0080], line 1-6, The CPU 71 can acquire the motion contrast at a plurality of time intervals by using the OCT signal detected at a constant scan time interval. That is, since the time interval changes depending on each set, a blood vessel with different blood flow velocities can be detected as motion contrast).
Regarding Claim 20, Takano teaches the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium that records a program causing a computer to execute the method of claim 18 (fig. 1,10-OCT device 10, 70-control unit, 71-CPU, 72-ROM, 73-RAM, 74-storage unit, 75-display, 76-operation unit).
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 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.
Claims 4 - 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al (US 20190380588) in a view of Motaghiannezam et al (US 20140221827).
Regarding Claim 4, Takano discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 3, wherein the plurality of regions includes a central part region located in a central area of a fundus of the eye and a peripheral part region located in a peripheral area of the fundus.
However, Motaghiannezam teaches a methods to ascertain motion contrast (abstract; figs. 1-2), wherein the plurality of regions includes a central part region located in a central area of a fundus of the eye and a peripheral part region located in a peripheral area of the fundus (fig. 17(a)(b) –dashed squares in center; 17(c)(d); 17(e)(f)(h)- Parafoveal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparats of Takano by the methods of Motaghiannezam for the purpose to enhance motion contrast of OCT images (¶[0047], line 1-20).
Regarding Claim 5, Takano - Motaghiannezam combination teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 4, wherein the central part region is a square-shaped area (fig. 17(a)(b) –dashed squares in center, as disclosed in Motaghiannezam), the peripheral part region has a shape defined by two concentric squares (fig. 17(a) –dashed squares in center and a square surround it, as disclosed in Motaghiannezam), and the outer edge of the central part region and the inner edge of the peripheral part region are common (17(a) –the dashed center squares, as disclosed in Motaghiannezam).
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al (US 20190380588) in a view of Kushida (JP 2017217145, English translation attached).
Regarding Claim 9, Takano discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 8, wherein lengths of the scan lines are mutually different.
However, Kushida teaches an OCT apparatus (abstract; figs, 1-3), wherein lengths of the scan lines are mutually different (¶[0048], line 1-7, when the scan range is changed in OCTA imaging, various setting values and the like regarding the scan parameters of the measurement light are changed and the Δt is maintained at a constant value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of Takano by the OCT apparatus of Kushida for a purpose of providing of an OCT apparatus that can accurately extract pseudo blood vessels images (¶[0009], line 1-4).
Regarding Claim 10, Takano - Kushida combination teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 9, wherein the scan lines have same number of scan points (fig. 3; A11—A15; B1-B5; --possible having 5 scan lines each line having 5 scan points, as disclosed in Kushida).
Regarding Claim 11, Takano - Kushida combination teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 7, wherein the plurality of regions includes regions having mutually different shapes and/or sizes (fig. 3, B1, B2; A11-A1m, A21-A2m; ¶[0048], line 1-7, when the scan range is changed in OCTA imaging, various setting values and the like regarding the scan parameters of the measurement light are changed and the Δt is maintained at a constant value, as disclosed in Kushida; abstract; line 1-13, The calculation unit selects two or more sets of OCT signals having different time interval between the OCT signals among sets obtained by extracting a plurality of OCT signals out of the three or more OCT signals, and calculates motion contrast for each of the selected two or more sets; see fig. 8(A-B), --motion contrast images, as disclosed in Takano).
Claims 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano et al (US 20190380588) in a view of Kushida (JP 2017217145), further in a view of Motaghiannezam et al (US 20140221827).
Regarding Claim 12, Takano - Kushida combination discloses as set forth above but does not specifically disclose that the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 11, wherein the plurality of regions includes a central part region located in a central area of a fundus of the eye and a peripheral part region located in a peripheral area of the fundus.
However, Motaghiannezam teaches a methods to ascertain motion contrast (abstract; figs. 1-2), wherein the plurality of regions includes a central part region located in a central area of a fundus of the eye and a peripheral part region located in a peripheral area of the fundus (fig. 17(a)(b) –dashed squares in center; 17(c)(d); 17(e)(f)(h)- Parafoveal).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparats of Takano by the methods of Motaghiannezam for the purpose to enhance motion contrast of OCT images (¶[0047], line 1-20).
Regarding Claim 13, Takano - Kushida - Motaghiannezam combination teaches the ophthalmic imaging apparatus of claim 12, wherein the central part region is a square-shaped area (fig. 17(a)(b) –dashed squares in center, as disclosed in Motaghiannezam), the peripheral part region has a shape defined by two concentric squares (fig. 17(a) –dashed squares in center and a square surround it, as disclosed in Motaghiannezam), and the outer edge of the central part region and the inner edge of the peripheral part region are common (17(a) –the dashed center squares, as disclosed in Motaghiannezam).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is rejected as having 112 issues, but would be allowable if the 112 rejections are overcome by a proper amendment.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: The prior art taken singularly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the limitations of the independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 would be proper.
In regard to claim 6, the prior art (see previous office action) taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest an ophthalmic imaging apparatus further comprise wherein the controller is further configured to control the data acquiring unit to acquire the plurality of pieces of time-course data with the substantially equal data acquisition time interval by applying a first raster scan to the central part region and a second raster scan to the peripheral part region, wherein a plurality of B-scans consisting of the first raster scan and a plurality of B-scans consisting of the second raster scan all have substantially equal length.
Examiner’s Note
Regarding the references, the Examiner cites particular figures, paragraphs, columns and line numbers in the reference(s), as applied to the claims above. Although the particular citations are representative teachings and are applied to specific limitations within the claims, other passages, internally cited references, and figures may also apply. In preparing a response, it is respectfully requested that the Applicant fully consider the references, in their entirety, as potentially disclosing or teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as fully consider the context of the passage as taught by the reference(s) or as disclosed by the Examiner.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Jie Lei whose telephone number is (571) 272 7231. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon.-Thurs. 8:00 am to 5:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by the telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571) 272 3689.The Fax number for the organization where this application 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 application 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 Services Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199(In USA or Canada) or 571-272-1000.
/JIE LEI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Prosecution Insights