DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/22/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, 8-10, 12-16 and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
The previously raised objections for Claims 1, 8-10, 13-16 and 18-19 are withdrawn because the issues have been properly corrected.
The previously raised rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for Claims 2-7 are withdrawn because the issues have been properly corrected.
Response to Arguments
On Pages 8-9 of Remarks, Applicant argues that regarding the claimed limitation of “receive an indication of a stimulus applied to an eye tissue of a patient” in Claim 1, reference Chen does not explicitly disclose such a feature, and because of the deficiency, Chen does not disclose “an instruction to emit OCT beams in response to receiving such an indication”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Specification, Para 0056, discloses “The indication can be, for example, an automatic detection that a stimulus has been applied, a user-supplied input that a stimulus has been applied, a synchronization signal generated by the computer, an expiration of a synchronization timer for applying a stimulus, combinations of the foregoing, and/or the like”. The previous and current Office Actions cite reference Chen’s Fig. 4 for teaching the feature, and the figure does provide synchronization between “ultrasound modulation” (corresponding to the claimed “stimulus”) and “camera trigger” and “Galvo X” (corresponding to the claimed beam emitting), which can be interpreted as the claimed feature of “receive an indication”.
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chen et al (US 20190335996 A1; hereafter Chen).
With regard to Claim 1, Chen discloses a system for measuring biomechanics in real-time at multiple eye-tissue locations (Chen, Para 0009; “the present invention features an integrated SW-ARF-OCE system for in vivo imaging to characterize the biomechanical properties of ocular tissues”. Fig. 2A-2B shows that measurements are performed at multiple locations (P1, P2, … Pn) of eye tissue.), the system comprising:
an optical coherence tomography (OCT) device (Chen, Para 0009; “The present invention uniquely includes a confocal SW-ARF-OCE system with co-aligned ARF excitation and OCT detection …”); and
a computer communicably coupled to the OCT device (Chen, Para 0010; “a processor operatively coupled to the SW-ARF-OCE system …”), wherein the computer is operable to:
receive an indication of a stimulus (ultrasound modulation signal) applied to eye tissue of a patient (Chen, Para 0049; “the entire excitation and detection process may be confocal and additionally synchronized as shown in FIG. 4. Turning now to FIG. 4, the ultrasound modulation signal (406) is delivered at the location P0 by adjusting galvo mirror position (402), for example.” For stimulation, Chen uses an ultrasound approach, i.e. shear-wave acoustic radiation force (SW-ARF). The synchronization between the excitation and the detection involves an indication of the stimulus (“ultrasound modulation signal”) applied, which agrees with how Specification interprets the claimed “indication” at Para 0056);
instruct the OCT device (Chen, Para 0010; “The memory stores computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations.”) to emit a plurality of beams, at approximately the same time, to a plurality of measurement locations on the eye tissue (Chen, Para 0013; “the second split light beam is confocal with the acoustic beam in a starting location, and focal on a plurality of locations on the sample”) in response to receiving the indication (Chen, Para 0049; “… the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn.”);
receive, from the OCT device, OCT data for each of the plurality of measurement locations (Chen, Para 0049; “The OCT beam is detected at locations P1 through Pn to estimate the propagation of the shear wave through the retinal layers. Herein, the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn.”); and
measure tissue responses to the stimulus at the plurality of measurement locations based on the OCT data (Chen, Para 0049; “the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn”; Para 0057; “method 300 proceeds to 310, where a shear wave propagation speed is calculated and a shear wave velocity map is generated.” Here “shear wave propagation speed” is one type of tissue response to the stimulus.).
With regard to Claim 2, Chen discloses a system of claim 1, the OCT device comprising an OCT engine that generates the plurality of beams at approximately the same time in response to the computer’s instructing the OCT device (Chen, Para 0049; “… the entire excitation and detection process may be confocal and additionally synchronized … the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn.” In the synchronized process of excitation and detection, light should be emitted immediately so that the detection procedure can be timely performed.).
With regard to Claim 8, Chen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the computer is operable to record and/or display data resultant from the measured tissue responses (Chen, Para 0059; “the co-registered OCT image, Doppler OCT image, OCT angiogram and OCE image may be displayed simultaneously.” Here “OCE image” is image of optical coherence elastography, which is a type of data resulted from the measured tissue responses.).
With regard to Claim 9, Chen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein measuring the tissue responses comprises measuring a propagation speed of a shear wave across at least a portion of the eye tissue based on the OCT data (Chen, Para 0057; “… method 300 proceeds to 310, where a shear wave propagation speed is calculated and a shear wave velocity map is generated.”).
With regard to Claim 10, Chen discloses the system of claim 9, wherein measuring the tissue responses comprises quantifying tissue stiffness based on the propagation speed of the shear wave (Chen, Para 0058; “The shear wave quantification algorithm may further estimate the shear modulus using the shear wave speed and tissue density, and generate elasticity based on the relationship between Young's modulus and shear modulus.”).
With regard to Claim 11, Chen discloses the system of claim 1, wherein the eye tissue comprises a cornea of the patient (Chen, Para 0060; “the systems and methods may be used in elasticity imaging of the cornea, iris, lens, vitreous, optic nerve head, and other parts of the eye globe.”).
With regard to Claim 12, Chen discloses a method of measuring biomechanics in real-time at multiple eye-tissue locations (Chen, Abstract; ““Systems and methods for detecting and mapping the mechanical elasticity of retinal layers in the posterior eye””; Para 0009; “the present invention features an integrated SW-ARF-OCE system for in vivo imaging to characterize the biomechanical properties of ocular tissues”. Fig. 2A-2B shows that measurements are performed at multiple locations (P1, P2, … Pn) of eye tissue.), the method comprising, by a computer (Chen, Para 0010; “a processor operatively coupled to the SW-ARF-OCE system …”) in communication with an optical coherence tomography (OCT) (Chen, Para 0009; “The present invention uniquely includes a confocal SW-ARF-OCE system with co-aligned ARF excitation and OCT detection …”) device:
receiving an indication of a stimulus (ultrasound modulation signal) applied to eye tissue of a patient (Chen, Para 0049; “the entire excitation and detection process may be confocal and additionally synchronized as shown in FIG. 4. Turning now to FIG. 4, the ultrasound modulation signal (406) is delivered at the location P0 by adjusting galvo mirror position (402), for example.” For stimulation, Chen uses an ultrasound approach, i.e. shear-wave acoustic radiation force (SW-ARF). The synchronization between the excitation and the detection involves an indication of the stimulus (“ultrasound modulation signal”) applied, which agrees with how Specification interprets the claimed “indication” at Para 0056);
instructing the OCT device (Chen, Para 0010; “The memory stores computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations.”) to emit a plurality of beams, at approximately the same time, to a plurality of measurement locations on the eye tissue (Chen, Para 0013; “the second split light beam is confocal with the acoustic beam in a starting location, and focal on a plurality of locations on the sample”) in response to receiving the indication (Chen, Para 0049; “… the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn.”);
receiving, from the OCT device, OCT data for each of the plurality of measurement locations (Chen, Para 0049; “The OCT beam is detected at locations P1 through Pn to estimate the propagation of the shear wave through the retinal layers. Herein, the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn.”); and
measuring tissue responses to the stimulus at the plurality of measurement locations based on the OCT data (Chen, Para 0049; “the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn”; Para 0057; “method 300 proceeds to 310, where a shear wave propagation speed is calculated and a shear wave velocity map is generated.” Here “shear wave propagation speed” is one type of tissue response to the stimulus.).
With regard to Claim 13, Chen discloses the method of claim 12, comprising recording and/or displaying data resultant from the measured tissue responses (Chen, Para 0059; “the co-registered OCT image, Doppler OCT image, OCT angiogram and OCE image may be displayed simultaneously.” Here “OCE image” is image of optical coherence elastography, which is a type of data resulted from the measured tissue responses.).
With regard to Claim 14, Chen discloses the method of claim 12, wherein measuring the tissue responses comprises measuring a propagation speed of a shear wave across at least a portion of the eye tissue based on the OCT data (Chen, Para 0057; “… method 300 proceeds to 310, where a shear wave propagation speed is calculated and a shear wave velocity map is generated.”).
With regard to Claim 15, Chen discloses the method of claim 14, wherein measuring the tissue responses comprises further quantifying tissue stiffness based on the propagation speed of the shear wave (Chen, Para 0058; “The shear wave quantification algorithm may further estimate the shear modulus using the shear wave speed and tissue density, and generate elasticity based on the relationship between Young's modulus and shear modulus.”).
With regard to Claim 16, Chen discloses the method of claim 12, further comprising generating, by the OCT device, the plurality of beams at approximately the same time in response to the instructing (Chen, Para 0049; “… the entire excitation and detection process may be confocal and additionally synchronized … the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn.” In the synchronized process of excitation and detection, light should be emitted immediately so that the detection procedure can be timely performed.).
With regard to Claim 20, Chen discloses a computer-program product comprising a non-transitory computer-usable medium having computer-readable program code embodied therein (Chen, Para 0009; “the present invention features an integrated SW-ARF-OCE system for in vivo imaging to characterize the biomechanical properties of ocular tissues”. To one of ordinary skill in the field, the disclosed system necessarily includes computer-usable medium having computer-readable programs for implementing the method.), the computer-readable program code adapted to be executed to implement a method comprising:
receiving an indication of a stimulus applied to eye tissue of a patient (Chen, Para 0049; “the entire excitation and detection process may be confocal and additionally synchronized as shown in FIG. 4. Turning now to FIG. 4, the ultrasound modulation signal (406) is delivered at the location P0 by adjusting galvo mirror position (402), for example.” The synchronization between the excitation and the detection involves an indication of the stimulus (“ultrasound modulation signal”) applied, which agrees with how Specification interprets the claimed “indication” at Para 0056);
instructing an optical coherence tomography (OCT) device to emit a plurality of beams, at approximately the same time, to a plurality of measurement locations on the eye tissue in response to receiving the indication (Chen, Para 0010; “The memory stores computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the processor to perform operations.”; Para 0042; “Light emitted from a light source (102) is filtered through an optical isolator (104) and split with an optical coupler (106). … Light may be split towards … a sample arm (containing a sample (118))”; Para 0049; “… the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn.”. The triggering of detecting OCT inherently includes instructing the light source to emit light beams.);
receiving, from the OCT device, OCT data for each of the plurality of measurement locations (Chen, Para 0049; “The OCT beam is detected at locations P1 through Pn to estimate the propagation of the shear wave through the retinal layers. Herein, the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn.”); and
measuring tissue responses to the stimulus at the plurality of measurement locations based on the OCT data (Chen, Para 0049; “the camera may be triggered to detect the OCT beam at locations P1 through Pn”; Para 0057; “method 300 proceeds to 310, where a shear wave propagation speed is calculated and a shear wave velocity map is generated.” Here “shear wave propagation speed” is one type of tissue response to the stimulus.).
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 3-4 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Kubota et al (US 20230020468 A1; hereafter Kubota).
With regard to Claim 3, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above. Chen further discloses the OCT device further comprising a beam scanner, and a focusing objective (acoustic radiation force optical coherence tomography (SW-ARF-OCE) system … where … GM: galvanometer mirrors, L1/L2: lens …”. Here “GM” corresponds to “beam scanner” of the Application, and “L2” corresponds to “focusing objective”. ), wherein:
the beam scanner guides the generated plurality of beams to a first plurality of locations on the focusing objective (Chen, Page 10, Claim 3; “… a second split light that is transmitted to the pair of galvo mirrors (114), wherein a position of the galvo mirrors is adjusted such that the second split light beam … focal on a plurality of locations on the sample …” According to Fig. 1, the guided beams from galvo mirrors (114) to the sample (118) arrive at L2 lens first.); and
the focusing objective focuses the directed plurality of beams on the plurality of measurement locations on the eye tissue (Chen, Para 0043; “a scan lens (124) may be used to penetrate through an ultrasound transducer (112) and into the sample (118).”).
Chen does not clearly and explicitly disclose using an optical element between the beam scanner and the focusing objective.
Kubota in the same field of endeavor discloses using an optical element between the beam scanner and the focusing objective (Kubota, Para 0110; “The light impinging the user's retina of the eye 5109-1 may be reflected back along the path established by … the scanning mirror 5113, … the dichroic mirror 5115, and the optical element 4916-1 …”. Here “dichroic mirror 5115” corresponds to “optical element” of the Application, and can locate between “scanning mirror 5113” and “optical element 4916-1” (a focusing lens as shown in Fig. 6).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, as suggested by Kubota, in order to include an optical element to direct light beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of enabling eye imaging or position-sensing using a second light beam (besides the OCT scan) so as to make sure the eye to be pointed within acceptable range when assessed by OCT (Kubota, Para 0184; “the OCT device 100 can monitor alignment of the user's eye with the position sensor, and if during a scan, alignment data falls outside an acceptable parameter, then the test can be repeated”).
With regard to Claim 4, Chen and Kubota disclose all the limitations of Claim 3 as discussed above, but do not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the optical element is a dichroic mirror.
Kubota further discloses wherein the optical element is a dichroic mirror (Kubota, Para 0131; “The mirror 5115 may comprise a hot mirror or dichroic beam splitter configured to reflect light above 800 nm and transmit light below 800 nm.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen and Kubota, as further suggested by Kubota, in order to use a dichroic mirror as the optical element. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of enabling eye imaging or position-sensing using a second light beam (besides the OCT scan) so as to make sure the eye to be pointed within acceptable range when assessed by OCT (Kubota, Para 0184; “the OCT device 100 can monitor alignment of the user's eye with the position sensor, and if during a scan, alignment data falls outside an acceptable parameter, then the test can be repeated”).
With regard to Claim 17, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above. Chen further discloses comprising:
guiding, via a beam scanner (Chen, Para 0026; “FIG. 1 shows a schematic diagram of a shear wave acoustic radiation force optical coherence tomography (SW-ARF-OCE) system … where … GM: galvanometer mirrors, L1/L2: lens …”. Here “GM” corresponds to “beam scanner” of the Application, and “L2” corresponds to “focusing objective”), the generated plurality of beams to a first plurality of locations on a focusing objective (Chen, Page 10, Claim 3; “… a second split light that is transmitted to the pair of galvo mirrors (114), wherein a position of the galvo mirrors is adjusted such that the second split light beam … focal on a plurality of locations on the sample …” According to Fig. 1, the guided beams from galvo mirrors (114) to the sample (118) arrive at L2 lens first); and
focusing, via the focusing objective (Chen, Para 0026; “FIG. 1 shows a schematic diagram of a shear wave acoustic radiation force optical coherence tomography (SW-ARF-OCE) system … where … GM: galvanometer mirrors, L1/L2: lens …”. Here “GM” corresponds to “beam scanner” of the Application, and “L2” corresponds to “focusing objective”), the directed plurality of beams on the plurality of measurement locations on the eye tissue (Chen, Para 0043; “a scan lens (124) may be used to penetrate through an ultrasound transducer (112) and into the sample (118).”).
Chen does not clearly and explicitly disclose using an optical element between the beam scanner and the focusing objective.
Kubota in the same field of endeavor discloses using an optical element between the beam scanner and the focusing objective (Kubota, Para 0110; “The light impinging the user's retina of the eye 5109-1 may be reflected back along the path established by … the scanning mirror 5113, … the dichroic mirror 5115, and the optical element 4916-1 …”. Here “dichroic mirror 5115” corresponds to “optical element” of the Application, and can locate between “scanning mirror 5113” and “optical element 4916-1” (a focusing lens as shown in Fig. 6).). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, as suggested by Kubota, in order to include an optical element to direct light beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of enabling eye imaging or position-sensing using a second light beam (besides the OCT scan) so as to make sure the eye to be pointed within acceptable range when assessed by OCT (Kubota, Para 0184; “the OCT device 100 can monitor alignment of the user's eye with the position sensor, and if during a scan, alignment data falls outside an acceptable parameter, then the test can be repeated”).
Claims 5-7 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, in view of Curatolo et al (US 20230051920 A1; hereafter Curatolo).
With regard to Claim 5, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above, but does not clearly and explicitly disclose the OCT engine comprising a beam splitter and first and second optical elements, wherein:
the beam splitter splits a source beam into a first beam to the first optical element and a second beam to the second optical element;
the first and second optical elements direct the first and second beams to a beam scanner; and
the plurality of beams generated by the OCT engine comprise the directed first and second beams.
Curatolo in the same field of endeavor discloses the OCT engine comprising a beam splitter and first and second optical elements (Curatolo, Fig. 3 shows a multi beamlets configuration that comprises one 1x3 coupler that splits a light beam into three beamlets, three collimators that direct the beamlets, and a galvanometer mirror (GM’).), wherein:
the beam splitter (1x3 coupler (or the 1-to-3 splitter) in Fig. 3) splits a source beam into a first beam to the first optical element (one of the three collimators in Fig. 3) and a second beam to the second optical element (a second of the three collimators in Fig. 3);
the first and second optical elements direct the first and second beams to a beam scanner (galvanometer mirror (GM’) in Fig. 3); and
the plurality of beams generated by the OCT engine comprise the directed first and second beams (two of the three beamlets in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, as suggested by Curatolo, in order to have optical structures to generate 2 beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved precision of the quantified biomechanical properties of eye tissue by using data sampled at multiple locations (Curatolo, Para 0007; “… allows capturing the deformation of the ocular tissue, especially the cornea, in multiple points distributed throughout the surface of the ocular tissue … allowing reconstruction of the biomechanical properties and/or a biomarker for biomechanical abnormality of that ocular tissue”).
With regard to Claim 6, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above, but does not clearly and explicitly disclose the OCT engine comprising a fiber beam splitter and first and second optical elements, wherein:
the fiber beam splitter splits a source beam into a first beam to the first optical element and a second beam to the second optical element;
the first and second optical elements direct the first and second beams to a beam scanner; and
the plurality of beams generated by the OCT engine comprise the directed first and second beams.
Curatolo in the same field of endeavor discloses the OCT engine comprising a fiber beam splitter (Curatolo, Para 0099; “… an inexpensive custom built swept-laser source, which is connected to a fiberized coupling system to deliver the multitude of deformation probing light beams to the cornea …”) and first and second optical elements (Curatolo, Fig. 3 shows a multi beamlets configuration that comprises one 1x3 coupler that splits a light beam into three beamlets, three collimators that direct the beamlets, and a galvanometer mirror (GM’).), wherein:
the fiber beam splitter (1x3 coupler (or the 1-to-3 splitter) in Fig. 3) splits a source beam into a first beam to the first optical element (one of the three collimators in Fig. 3) and a second beam to the second optical element (a second of the three collimators in Fig. 3);
the first and second optical elements direct the first and second beams to a beam scanner (galvanometer mirror (GM’) in Fig. 3); and
the plurality of beams generated by the OCT engine comprise the directed first and second beams (two of the three beamlets in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, as suggested by Curatolo, in order to have fiberized optical structures to generate 2 beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved precision of the quantified biomechanical properties of eye tissue by using data sampled at multiple locations (Curatolo, Para 0007; “… allows capturing the deformation of the ocular tissue, especially the cornea, in multiple points distributed throughout the surface of the ocular tissue … allowing reconstruction of the biomechanical properties and/or a biomarker for biomechanical abnormality of that ocular tissue”) and making the system more compact by using fibers.
With regard to Claim 7, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claim 2 as discussed above, but does not clearly and explicitly disclose the OCT engine comprising a plurality of beam splitters including first, second and third beam splitters and a plurality of optical elements including first, second, third and fourth optical elements, wherein:
the first beam splitter splits a source beam into a first intermediate beam to the second beam splitter and a second intermediate beam to the third beam splitter;
the second beam splitter splits the first intermediate beam into a first output beam to the first optical element and a second output beam to the second optical element;
the third beam splitter splits the second intermediate beam into a third output beam to the third optical element and a fourth output beam to the fourth optical element;
the first, second, third, and fourth optical elements direct the first, second, third, and fourth output beams to a beam scanner; and
the plurality of beams generated by the OCT engine comprise the directed first, second, third, and fourth output beams.
Curatolo in the same field of endeavor discloses the OCT engine (Curatolo, Fig. 7 shows a multi beamlets configuration that comprises a 1x9 fibre coupler that further comprises first, second and third beam splitters, and corresponding collimators for the beamlets) comprising a plurality of beam splitters including first, second and third beam splitters (Curatolo, Fig. 7: the 1x3 fibre coupler on the left side, and any two of the thee 1x3 fibre couplers on the right side) and a plurality of optical elements including first, second, third and fourth optical elements (Curatolo, Para 0105; “nine fibre collimators”. Any four of the 9 collimators can act as the first, second, third and fourth optical elements of the Application), wherein:
the first beam splitter splits a source beam into a first intermediate beam to the second beam splitter and a second intermediate beam to the third beam splitter (Curatolo, Para 0105; “…a 1×9 fibre coupler, which is built by cascading one and three 1×3 couplers”. The first coupler (see Fig. 7) corresponds to the first beam splitter of the Application);
the second beam splitter splits the first intermediate beam into a first output beam to the first optical element and a second output beam to the second optical element (Curatolo, Para 0105; “…a 1×9 fibre coupler, which is built by cascading one and three 1×3 couplers … Sample arm optics, including nine fibre collimators”. Any one of the three couplers (see Fig. 7) correspond to the second beam splitters of the Application, and the two output beams are directed to two of the nine fibre collimators);
the third beam splitter splits the second intermediate beam into a third output beam to the third optical element and a fourth output beam to the fourth optical element (Curatolo, Para 0105; “…a 1×9 fibre coupler, which is built by cascading one and three 1×3 couplers … Sample arm optics, including nine fibre collimators”. Any one of the three couplers (see Fig. 7) correspond to the third beam splitters of the Application, and the two output beams are directed to two of the nine fibre collimators);
the first, second, third, and fourth optical elements direct the first, second, third, and fourth output beams to a beam scanner (Curatolo, Fig. 7; conical mirror 300. All the beams are transmitted to the conical mirror before being reflected to the sample); and
the plurality of beams generated by the OCT engine comprise the directed first, second, third, and fourth output beams (Curatolo, Fig. 7 shows that the beams generated by the system comprise the first, second, third and fourth beams).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, as suggested by Curatolo, in order to have optical structures to transmit a plurality (such as 9) of light beams to the measured sample. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved precision of the quantified biomechanical properties of eye tissue by using data sampled at multiple locations (Curatolo, Para 0031; “Having multiple points throughout the surface of the ocular tissue has been numerically demonstrated to be necessary for accurately measuring corneal biomechanics and/or related biomarkers for corneal diseases”).
With regard to Claim 18, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above, but does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein generating the plurality of beams comprises:
splitting a source beam into a first beam to a first optical element and a second beam to a second optical element; and
directing, via the first and second optical elements, the first and second beams to a beam scanner, wherein the generated plurality of beams comprise the directed first and second beams.
Curatolo in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein generating the plurality of beams comprises:
splitting a source beam (Curatolo, Fig. 3 shows a multi beamlets configuration that comprises one 1x3 coupler that splits a light beam into three beamlets, three collimators that direct the beamlets, and a galvanometer mirror (GM’)) into a first beam to a first optical element (one of the three collimators in Fig. 3) and a second beam to a second optical element (a second of the three collimators in Fig. 3); and
directing, via the first and second optical elements, the first and second beams to a beam scanner (galvanometer mirror (GM’) in Fig. 3), wherein the generated plurality of beams comprise the directed first and second beams (two of the three beamlets in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, as suggested by Curatolo, in order to have optical structures to generate 2 beams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved precision of the quantified biomechanical properties of eye tissue by using data sampled at multiple locations (Curatolo, Para 0007; “… allows capturing the deformation of the ocular tissue, especially the cornea, in multiple points distributed throughout the surface of the ocular tissue … allowing reconstruction of the biomechanical properties and/or a biomarker for biomechanical abnormality of that ocular tissue”).
With regard to Claim 19, Chen discloses all the limitations of Claim 16 as discussed above, but does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein generating the plurality of beams comprises:
splitting a source beam into a first intermediate beam and a second intermediate beam;
splitting the first intermediate beam into a first output beam to a first optical element and a second output beam to a second optical element;
splitting the second intermediate beam into a third output beam to a third optical element and a fourth output beam to a fourth optical element; and
directing, via the first, second, third, and fourth optical elements, the first, second, third, and fourth output beams to a beam scanner, wherein the generated plurality of beams comprise the directed first, second, third, and fourth output beams.
Curatolo in the same field of endeavor discloses wherein generating the plurality of beams (Curatolo, Fig. 7 shows a multi beamlets configuration that comprises a 1x9 fibre coupler that further comprises first, second and third beam splitters, and corresponding collimators for the beamlets) comprises:
splitting a source beam into a first intermediate beam and a second intermediate beam (Curatolo, Para 0105; “…a 1×9 fibre coupler, which is built by cascading one and three 1×3 couplers”. The first coupler (see Fig. 7) corresponds to the first beam splitter of the Application.);
splitting the first intermediate beam into a first output beam to a first optical element and a second output beam to a second optical element (Curatolo, Para 0105; “…a 1×9 fibre coupler, which is built by cascading one and three 1×3 couplers … Sample arm optics, including nine fibre collimators”. Any one of the three couplers (see Fig. 7) correspond to the second beam splitters of the Application, and the two output beams are directed to two of the nine fibre collimators);
splitting the second intermediate beam into a third output beam to a third optical element and a fourth output beam to a fourth optical element (Curatolo, Para 0105; “…a 1×9 fibre coupler, which is built by cascading one and three 1×3 couplers … Sample arm optics, including nine fibre collimators”. Any one of the three couplers (see Fig. 7) correspond to the third beam splitters of the Application, and the two output beams are directed to two of the nine fibre collimators); and
directing, via the first, second, third, and fourth optical elements, the first, second, third, and fourth output beams to a beam scanner (Curatolo, Fig. 7; conical mirror 300. All the beams are transmitted to the conical mirror before being reflected to the sample), wherein the generated plurality of beams comprise the directed first, second, third, and fourth output beams (Curatolo, Fig. 7 shows that the beams generated by the system comprise the first, second, third and fourth beams.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Chen, as suggested by Curatolo, in order to have optical structures to transmit a plurality (such as 9) of light beams to the measured sample. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of improved precision of the quantified biomechanical properties of eye tissue by using data sampled at multiple locations (Curatolo, Para 0031; “Having multiple points throughout the surface of the ocular tissue has been numerically demonstrated to be necessary for accurately measuring corneal biomechanics and/or related biomarkers for corneal diseases”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Everett et al (US 20190056214 A1) discloses systems and methods for acquiring high-resolution OCT images of eyes, which performs measurements at multiple locations of sample and uses an optical element between beam scanner and a focusing objective. Ambrozinski et al (US 20200315570 A1) discloses systems and methods that perform OCT imaging of cornea after applying stimulus and based on the acquired data determine the speed of mechanical wave and map tissue elasticity.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 LEI ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm E.T..
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/L.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights