DETAILED ACTION
Information Disclosure Statement
The references cited in the Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on 10/16/2024 and 8/26/2025 has/have been considered. However, based on the extensive number and the length of references cited, only a cursory review was made. Applicant is advised to provide which of the cited references and/or contents thereof are most pertinent to the instant application, if a detailed consideration is desired.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/16/2024 and 8/26/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, it is noted that All Non-Patent Literature (NPL) citations need at least a month and year of publication: MPEP 609.04(a): The date of publication supplied must include at least the month and year of publication, except that the year of publication (without the month) will be accepted if the applicant points out in the information disclosure statement that the year of publication is sufficiently earlier than the effective U.S. filing date and any foreign priority date so that the particular month of publication is not in issue. NPL cited without at least the month and year of publication has been labeled with “no date available”.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) or number(s). Specifically, in Fig. 5, although there are boxes labeled “image acquisition module”, “image processing module”, and “image fusion module”, there are no corresponding reference sign(s) or number(s). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “performing average gradient fusion or weighted fusion on a plurality of images obtained to obtain a final fused PS-OCT image.” The phrase "a plurality of images obtained" renders the claims indefinite because the claims fail to identify with reasonable certainty which images constitute the recited plurality of images that are subjected to the fusion operation. Although the preceding limitations recite obtaining a polarization-state image, a local optical-axis image, and a local phase-retardation image, the claims do not positively recite that those images comprise the plurality of images used in the fusion step. Instead, the claims broadly recite fusion performed on "a plurality of images obtained" without specifying the identity or source of those images.
The specification consistently identifies the images used in the fusion operation as the polarization-state image, the local optical-axis image, and the local phase-retardation image. For example, the specification at ¶88 states that "The polarization-state image, the local optical axis image and the local phase retardation image are normalized" prior to average-gradient fusion and further describes at ¶158 the image fusion module as performing fusion on "a plurality of images obtained above." However, the claims omit this clarification and instead recite only "a plurality of images obtained," leaving the identity of the fused images undefined.
Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed fusion limitation because it is unclear whether the recited plurality of images is limited to the images generated by the immediately preceding steps, includes additional images obtained during preprocessing or subsequent processing, or encompasses some other plurality of images. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, multiple reasonable interpretations exist regarding the identity of the images that are required to be fused. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claimed invention cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, and the claims fail to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because the depend of off indefinite independent claims 1 and 13, receptively. The additional limitations recited in claims 2-12 and 14-20 do not resolve the ambiguity discussed above with respectively to independent claims 1 and 13. Accordingly, claims 2-12 and 14-20 are likewise indefinite.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim limitation “image acquisition module”, “image processing module”, and “image fusion module” in claim 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
As noted above, the limitations "image acquisition module," "image processing module," and "image fusion module" invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Whenever a claim limitation is interpreted under 112(f), the specification must disclose corresponding structure, materials, or acts that perform the recited function with reasonable certainty. For computer-implemented functions, the disclosure must include both the computing hardware (e.g., a processor, CPU, or microcontroller) and the corresponding algorithm.
Here, while the specification details various mathematical steps and formulas for processing and fusing images (e.g., paragraphs [0070], [0085], [0094]), a comprehensive review of the specification reveals no disclosure whatsoever of any hardware structure (such as a CPU, processor, computer, or digital scan converter) capable of executing these steps. The disclosure of the system in paragraphs [0155]–[0158] merely repeats the functional limitations of the modules without supplying physical structure.
Because the specification fails to disclose any corresponding hardware structure to execute the recited algorithms, the metes and bounds of these 112(f) limitations cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. Accordingly, claim 13 is indefinite. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Examiner's Comments
The Office has established numerous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b) with regard to claims 1-20. The scope of claims 1-20 cannot be determined because of the identified issues presented above. The numerous rejections to claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b) render applicant's claims as being so incomprehensible as to preclude a reasonably detailed search of the prior art by the examiner. The examiner has attempted to identify all grounds for rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and/or 112(b). However, the number of issues with regard to claims 1-20 is so numerous that the scope of the claims cannot be ascertained. The examiner suggests that the applicant carefully review the claims in order to fix any and all issues that have and have not been highlighted by this office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN KY whose telephone number is (571)272-7648. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5PM.
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, Vincent Rudolph can be reached at 571-272-8243. 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.
/KEVIN KY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2671
Prosecution Insights