Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-8, 11, 13-16, 19-22 and 26-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Swanson et al (US 20190212761) hereafter known as Swanson.
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 1:
A surgical operating system [see Fig. 4 element 400 and para 54… “FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment of an endoscopic system 400 of the present teaching.”], comprising:
a surgical tool [see Fig. 4 element 430 and para 59… “A simplified diagram of the endoscope 430 is shown, but it is understood that this may include other structures typically found in endoscopes, such as protective jackets, sheaths, torque cables, accessory ports, multi-clad fibers, housings, articulation, and motors, radio-opaque markers, etc.”],
an optical sensor arranged on or in the surgical tool and configured to measure a distance of the surgical tool from a tissue for a plurality of directions and/or for a
plurality of mutually separated punctiform spatial regions [see Fig. 4 elements 420’ and 420 and para 48… “A system controller actively measures the optical distance to the distal fiber reflections and adjusts the proximal amplitude and phase beam forming elements to implement the desired scan pattern of the distal light, e.g., in a manner analogous to phase array scanning. Synthetic processing approaches are also possible.” And para 59-66 with particular interest in… “There are various forms of detector arrays 420, 420′ that can be utilized, such as those based on photo-diode arrays, CCDs, and other array detectors.” and “While it is possible to obtain the transfer function or transfer matrix of an imaging waveguide by launching light at the proximal end and performing measurements at the distal end”],
an optical coherence tomography measuring device connected to the optical sensor [see Fig. 4 and para 54… “the laser source 402 can be a swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) laser and the system 400 can be used for performing synthetic or physical scanning of the sample's optical properties.” And para 53… “With respect to imaging, there are a variety of different embodiments according to the present teaching, including interferometry-based imaging (e.g. OCT), confocal microscopy, fluorescence imaging, multi-photon imaging, spectroscopic imaging, and reflectance imaging, etc.”]
and configured to determine the respective distance from the tissue for the plurality of directions and/or punctiform spatial regions by means of the sensor and to provide the determined distances [see para 48… “A system controller actively measures the optical distance to the distal fiber reflections and adjusts the proximal amplitude and phase beam forming elements to implement the desired scan pattern of the distal light, e.g., in a manner analogous to phase array scanning.”]
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 26:
A surgical tool [see Fig. 4 element 430 and para 59… “A simplified diagram of the endoscope 430 is shown, but it is understood that this may include other structures typically found in endoscopes, such as protective jackets, sheaths, torque cables, accessory ports, multi-clad fibers, housings, articulation, and motors, radio-opaque markers, etc.”], comprising:
an optical sensor arranged on or in the surgical tool and configured to measure a
distance of the surgical tool from a tissue for a plurality of directions and/or for a
plurality of mutually separated punctiform spatial regions [see Fig. 4 elements 420’ and 420 and para 48… “A system controller actively measures the optical distance to the distal fiber reflections and adjusts the proximal amplitude and phase beam forming elements to implement the desired scan pattern of the distal light, e.g., in a manner analogous to phase array scanning. Synthetic processing approaches are also possible.” And para 59-66 with particular interest in… “There are various forms of detector arrays 420, 420′ that can be utilized, such as those based on photo-diode arrays, CCDs, and other array detectors.” and “While it is possible to obtain the transfer function or transfer matrix of an imaging waveguide by launching light at the proximal end and performing measurements at the distal end”].
Independent claim:
Regarding claim 28:
A method for safeguarding a surgical operation [para 50… “There are numerous aspects of the apparatus and methods for fiber optic imaging and light delivery and collection of the present teaching. Methods to determine and/or compensate for the continuously changing fiber transfer function are described. Systems and methods are also described that, once the transfer function is known, can deliver light to a sample, collect light from a sample, and/or perform imaging of the sample's optical properties.” Proper imaging and light delivery is understood to be a form of safeguarding a surgical operation],
wherein a distance of a surgical tool from a tissue is measured for a plurality
of directions and/or for a plurality of mutually separated punctiform spatial regions by
means of an optical sensor arranged on or in the surgical tool [see Fig. 4 elements 420’ and 420 (i.e. optical sensors) and para 48… “A system controller actively measures the optical distance to the distal fiber reflections and adjusts the proximal amplitude and phase beam forming elements to implement the desired scan pattern of the distal light, e.g., in a manner analogous to phase array scanning. Synthetic processing approaches are also possible.” And para 59-66 with particular interest in… “There are various forms of detector arrays 420, 420′ that can be utilized, such as those based on photo-diode arrays, CCDs, and other array detectors.” and “While it is possible to obtain the transfer function or transfer matrix of an imaging waveguide by launching light at the proximal end and performing measurements at the distal end”],
wherein an optical coherence tomography measuring device connected to the optical sensor is used to determine a respective distance from the tissue for the plurality of directions and/or spatial regions using a sensor signal from the optical sensor as a
starting point, and the determined distances are provided [see Fig. 4 and para 54… “the laser source 402 can be a swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) laser and the system 400 can be used for performing synthetic or physical scanning of the sample's optical properties.”] and configured to determine the respective distance from the tissue for the plurality of directions and/or punctiform spatial regions by means of the sensor and to provide the determined distances [see para 48… “A system controller actively measures the optical distance to the distal fiber reflections and adjusts the proximal amplitude and phase beam forming elements to implement the desired scan pattern of the distal light, e.g., in a manner analogous to phase array scanning.”]
Dependent claims:
Regarding claim 2, see Fig. 4 element 406 of Swanson and para 55 of Swanson [see “an additional cladding waveguide around the multimode waveguide 406 can be used to collect more light. The multimode waveguide 406 may be a multimode and/or multicore fiber.”] which discloses a fiber as claimed and para 58 of Swanson [see “The distal end of the multimode waveguide 406 may contain distal optics 418, that may be active or passive, and assist in transferring light to or from the sample 404 of interest and optionally include shutters and other devices.”] and Fig. 4 element 418 of Swanson and para 58 [see “The distal end of the multimode waveguide 406 may contain distal optics 418, that may be active or passive, and assist in transferring light to or from the sample 404 of interest and optionally include shutters and other devices.”] which disclose micro-optical elements as claimed.] and para 64 [see “The generation of such fields at the distal end distal optics 418 can allow for a very simple design, very low cost of the disposable endoscope, very small size, and flexibility. In some embodiments, the distal optics 418 may have a shutter, or other means, to separate when light is collected from the sample and when light is collected from a distal fiber reflectance target.”] discloses micro-optical element as claimed. Finally, see rejection to claim 1 above and Fig. 4 which describes OCT measuring device as claimed.
Regarding claims 6 and 22, see rejection to claim 1 above which discloses a surgical tooth in the form of an endoscope and see para 135 of Swanson [see “Also as described herein, the present teaching includes the concept of simultaneously using shape sensing fibers to allow both imaging and knowledge of the fibers shape. One additional important aspect for some applications is to enable methods to simultaneously articulate the fiber to allow navigation to remote hard to reach places. There are numerous methods known in the art used in traditional endoscopes to allow navigation through torturous small channels within the human body or in industrial applications outside the human body”] which discloses sizing the endoscope to fit hard to reach areas which recites structure capable of being used in ophthalmological surgery as recited by claim 6 and the OCT structurally capable of being used as recited in functional language based on the input from the endoscope as recited by claim 22.
Regarding claim 7, see para 105 [see “tip shaping at the distal end of the fiber may be used to steer the beam or modify the scanning range and resolution. The shape of the tip may be such that one or more spots are produced simultaneously to image the sample.”] which discloses Swanson as having being able to determine some distances simultaneously as claimed.
Regarding claim 8, see para 56 [see “As shown in FIG. 4, light output from the laser or other type of optical source 402 is collected and split into a reference path 408 and a path 410 to an amplitude, phase, and/or polarization control device 412. The one or two-dimensional amplitude, phase, and/or polarization control device 412 is sometimes referred to as a spatial light modulator (SLM). However, a generic amplitude, phase, and/or polarization control device is intended in this teaching. The control device 412 generates a spatial profile on an optical beam generated by the light source 402 in response to an electrical input signal from processing element 428. The spatial profile may be generated in one or two dimensions across the optical beam. The spatial profile may be modulated as a function of time and/or in response to control signals that may be generated by a processor that processes the signals received by a detector 420 and/or 420′.”] which discloses claim 8 as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, see para 58 [see “The waveplates 422 can be used to adjust the polarization, and the modulator 424 can be used to impart various forms of modulation (intensity, phase, polarization, frequency/wavelength (e.g., acousto-optic modulator (AOM) etc.)) to aid in extracting and/or calibrating the interference signal on the detectors 420, 420′. These interference signal features include phase, frequency, polarization, amplitude, and wavelength etc. The subsequent figures do not show the optional modulator 424.”] and para 52 [see “The light collected from the distal reflections may be referred to as calibration light, and the light modified by the proximal amplitude and phase beam forming elements may be referred to as sample probe light.”] which discloses calibration understood to be collection of r distal reflections (i.e. assigning different directions and/or regions) on the basis of intensities.
Regarding claim 13, see Fig. 4 element 406 of Swanson and para 55 of Swanson [see… “Also, an additional cladding waveguide around the multimode waveguide 406 can be used to collect more light. The multimode waveguide 406 may be a multimode and/or multicore fiber. The multiple cores in the multicore fiber may be coupled, uncoupled, or a combination of both coupled and uncoupled.”] which disclose a multi-mode optical fiber as claimed. Also based on para 82 [see “the calibration of the multimode waveguide allows for the formation of a focus at the end of the fiber that can be used for a medical procedure, including imaging, OCT, fluorescence, confocal optics and laser power delivery. “]
Regarding claim 14, see Fig. 4 element 406 and para 55 of Swanson [see “Also, an additional cladding waveguide around the multimode waveguide 406 can be used to collect more light. The multimode waveguide 406 may be a multimode and/or multicore fiber.”] discloses a multi-core fiber as claimed and see Fig. 4 element 418 and para 58 of Swanson [see “The distal end of the multimode waveguide 406 may contain distal optics 418, that may be active or passive, and assist in transferring light to or from the sample 404 of interest and optionally include shutters and other devices. These shutters and other devices are described later.”] which discloses micro-optical elements as claimed. Additionally, see para 82 of Swanson [see “the calibration of the multimode waveguide allows for the formation of a focus at the end of the fiber that can be used for a medical procedure, including imaging, OCT, fluorescence, confocal optics and laser power delivery.”] which discloses using the fiber with OCT thereby reciting at the very least capability to assign directions or regions on the cores as claimed.
Regarding claim 15, see para 58 of Swanson [see “Light from the sample 404 is collected by the multimode waveguide 406 and directed to one or more detector arrays 420, 420′. The detector arrays may include a detector array 420 for the x-direction and a detector array 420′ for the y-direction. Light from the optical source 402 is also transmitted along a reference path 408 through optional wave plates 422 and modulators 424 to the detector arrays 420 and 420′. The waveplates 422 can be used to adjust the polarization, and the modulator 424 can be used to impart various forms of modulation (intensity, phase, polarization, frequency/wavelength (e.g., acousto-optic modulator (AOM) etc.)) to aid in extracting and/or calibrating the interference signal on the detectors 420, 420′.”] which discloses a modulator that when used with the detector arrays (i.e. optical sensor) is configured to modulate light and since the fiber system includes OCT as discussed in rejection to claim 1, the system is capable of being configured to assign directions on the modulation as claimed.
Regarding claim 16, para 43 of Swanson [see “The multicore fiber cross section includes single mode (or few mode) fibers 322, 322′, 322″, 322′. The region 324 may be a multimode core or comprise multiple fiber cores, which may be multi-mode or single-mode at operating wavelength.”] that the device is capable single mode and multimode operation and para 63 of Swanson [see “The entire endoscope 430 may also contain some form of mechanical angular or lateral scanning using motors, pullback motors, torque cables, or other known approaches, such as those described in connection with FIG. 2.”] discloses the endoscope can be moved by motors indicating a structural capability to collect data (i.e. measure) then move and collect data from another area indicating structural capability to measure distances sequentially as claimed.
Regarding claim 19, Paras 57-58 of Swanson [see “The control device 412 can also include optional shutters and polarization control. Light from the control device 412 is transferred onto the input facet 414 of the optical fiber using lenses 416 or other known optical approaches.” And “The distal end of the multimode waveguide 406 may contain distal optics 418, that may be active or passive, and assist in transferring light to or from the sample 404 of interest and optionally include shutters and other devices. These shutters and other devices are described later.”] and para 115 of Swanson [see “This can be achieved by using shutters, modulating the multimode source and the single-mode source, or other means, during the calibration step.”] disclose shutters and other elements (i.e. switchable micro-optical elements) that are used in the calibration step which provides directions or spatial regions as claimed.
Regarding claim 20, see Fig. 4 element 406 and para 54 of Swanson [see “Alternatively, the multiple modes of the multimode waveguide 406 can be used to collect more light if single spatial mode detection imaging is not required.”] which is a moveable element as claimed.
Regarding claim 21, para 54 of Swanson [see “FIG. 4 illustrates an embodiment of an endoscopic system 400 of the present teaching. A laser or other type of optical source 402 produces light at a proximal end of the endoscopic system 400. In some embodiments, the laser source 402 can be a swept-source OCT (SS-OCT) laser and the system 400 can be used for performing synthetic or physical scanning of the sample's optical properties. This is similar to a standard SS-OCT scan but with the important addition of having the endoscope contain a multimode optical fiber instead of a traditional single mode optical fiber in combination with scanning techniques. For example, a prior art traditional single mode optical fiber in combination with scanning techniques are shown in FIG. 2.”] discloses the endoscope system preforms a swept scanned OCT scan which implies that the OCT measuring device is accounts for the positions or orientation of the endoscope (i.e. element 430 and the surgical tool) as it provides data of the imaged tissue to the OCT measurement device.
Regarding claim 27, see Fig. 4 element 406 of Swanson and para 55 of Swanson [see “an additional cladding waveguide around the multimode waveguide 406 can be used to collect more light. The multimode waveguide 406 may be a multimode and/or multicore fiber.”] which discloses a fiber as claimed and para 58 of Swanson [see “The distal end of the multimode waveguide 406 may contain distal optics 418, that may be active or passive, and assist in transferring light to or from the sample 404 of interest and optionally include shutters and other devices.”] and Fig. 4 element 418 of Swanson and para 58 [see “The distal end of the multimode waveguide 406 may contain distal optics 418, that may be active or passive, and assist in transferring light to or from the sample 404 of interest and optionally include shutters and other devices.”] which disclose micro-optical elements as claimed.] and para 64 [see “The generation of such fields at the distal end distal optics 418 can allow for a very simple design, very low cost of the disposable endoscope, very small size, and flexibility. In some embodiments, the distal optics 418 may have a shutter, or other means, to separate when light is collected from the sample and when light is collected from a distal fiber reflectance target.”] discloses micro-optical element as claimed.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson in view of Balicki et al (US 20110106102) hereafter known as Balicki.
Swanson discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Swanson fails to disclose “wherein the surgical operating system EB is configured to create and output feedback for a user using at least the determined distance with the smallest value as a starting point” as recited by claim 3, “wherein the surgical operating system is configured to compare the determined distances with at least one specified minimum distance and create and output at least one warning message and/or at least one warning signal and/or at least one control signal should the at least one specified minimum distance be undershot” as recited by claim 4, or “wherein the surgical operating system is configured to allow the specification of respective minimum distances for at least some of the plurality of directions and/or spatial regions, to compare the respective distances with the respective specified minimum distances, and to create and output at least one warning message and/or at least one warning signal and/or at least one control signal should the respective
specified minimum distance be undershot” as recited by claim 5.
Balicki discloses in the analogous art of OCT related devices [see para 24… “Some embodiments of the current invention are directed to a new class of microsurgical instruments incorporating common path optical coherence tomography (CP-OCT) capabilities.”] a controller that provides a warning signal and feedback response signal that warns a user and constraints the tip of the device a minimum distance from tissue as a safety feature [para 33… “the data processor 404 can be configured to provide at least one of a warning signal or a feedback response signal based on a value of a relative position of the distal end of the surgical instrument to the tissue. In some embodiments of the current invention, the data processor 404 can be configured to provide a feedback response signal to the robotic system based on a value of at least one of a relative distance of the distal end of the surgical instrument from the tissue or a position of the instrument such that the robotic system provides a feedback response.” and para 43… “In the safety barrier task, the system enforced a safety constraint to prevent the probe from approaching the target surface closer than a specified threshold distance. The robot moved freely within the 1D workspace to comply with forces exerted by the user on the control handle, with the exception of the forbidden boundary sensed via the OCT.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swanson’s controller to provides a warning signal and feedback response signal that warns a user and constraints the tip of the device a minimum distance from tissue similarly to that disclosed by Balicki (i.e. thereby reciting claims 3 and 5) for the purpose of keeping a user safe.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to modify the threshold and feedback by using the determined distance as the smallest value as a starting point for the warning signal (i.e. thereby reciting claim 4) because there are a limited number of distances that could be used (i.e. the determined distance with the smallest value or the determined distance with largest value) and the determined distance with the smallest value is one of those limited number of choices.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson in view of Seesselberg et al (US 20120069303) hereafter known as Seesselberg.
Swanson discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above and calibrating the system [see para 48… “The light reflected from the distal fiber end or reflector is one form of light used for calibration of the system and may be referred to as calibration light.”]
However, Swanson fails to disclose “wherein the optical coherence tomography measuring device configured to take account of at least one calibration curve when determining the distance” as recited by claim 23.
Seesselberg discloses in the analogues art of optical coherence tomography measurement diagnostics [see “Furthermore, the optical measuring system can comprise an optical microscopy system and optionally an OCT system for carrying out different optical examination methods at the same time.”] calibrating based on a calibration curve to determine the distance between different surgical devices [see para 33… “The controller may comprise or make use of a calibration curve, which allows to convert between the amount of a spherical aberration of the eye under inspection and a distance of a displacement for pre-compensating this ametropia. By using the calibration curve, it is possible to control the actuator for displacing the second optical subassembly relative to the second optical assembly based on a known ametropia of the eye under inspection.”].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swanson by having the system including the OCT measuring device calibrate using a calibration curve when determining the distances similarly to that disclosed by Seesselberg because this provides the advantage of allowing the system to know where it is relative to other devices in the surgical field.
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson in view of Chernobrod et al (US 20140058226) hereafter known as Chernobrod.
Swanson discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 as outlined above.
However, Swanson fails to disclose “wherein the optical sensor is configured so that at least one spectral property of light guided into different directions and/or spatial regions differs, with the optical coherence tomography measuring device being configured to assign the different directions and/or spatial regions while taking account of the respective spectral properties” as recited by claim 24 and “wherein the spectral properties comprise at least one of the following: a signal width, a distance
between a signal, and a parasitic signal, a property of a parasitic signal” as recited by claim 25.
Chernobrod discloses in the analogous art of optical diagnostics [see para 2… “The present invention is related to the field of non-invasive optical detection and measuring of glucose concentration in blood vessels.”] that parasitic scattering of light is a known problem in skin tissues [see para 3… “A major obstacle for high accuracy measurement is a parasitic scattering of light radiation in the skin tissues.”] and that a known way to reduce parasitic influence is use a rotating phase diffuse, deformable mirror or other anti-speckle device [see para 10… “The probing beams are arranged coaxially. To average out and reduce a parasitic influence of the speckle structures on the backscattering signal, the excitation beams are transformed into partially coherent beams by utilizing a rotating phase diffuser, deformable mirror and/or other anti-speckle devices”]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Swanson by including a rotating phase diffuser, deformable mirror and/or other anti-speckle devices and to reduce parasitic influence similarity to that disclosed by Chernobrod (thereby reciting claims 24-25) as this will help Swanson reduce known problems in skin tissue analysis thereby allowing the device to work on skin tissue as well thereby making the device more versatile.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-10, 12 and 17-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 recites a surgical operation system. The closest prior art is Swanson. Swanson discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 on which claim 9 is dependent on as outlined above. However, Swanson fails to fully disclose “wherein the optical sensor is configured to guide light from different wavelength ranges into different directions and/or spatial regions of the plurality of directions and/or spatial regions and to capture light arriving therefrom while maintaining the different wavelength ranges for the different directions and/or spatial regions of the plurality of directions and/or spatial regions, with the optical coherence tomography measuring device being configured to assign the different directions and/or spatial regions on the basis of the wavelength ranges”. Furthermore, nothing in the prior art when viewed with Swanson obviates this deficiency. It is important to note that it is not the missing limitation by itself that defines the invention over the prior, but rather it is the combination of the missing limitation with all the limitations of claim 1 together that defines the invention over the prior art. Therefore, the combination of claimed limitations of claim 9 is neither anticipated, nor obviated in view of the prior art
Regarding claim 10:
Claim 10 recites a surgical operation system. The closest prior art is Swanson. Swanson discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 on which claim 10 is dependent on as outlined above. However, Swanson fails to fully disclose “wherein the optical sensor is configured to provide respective light for the different directions and/or spatial regions of the plurality of directions and/or spatial regions with different OCT working distances, with the optical coherence tomography measuring device being configured to assign the different directions and/or spatial regions on the basis of the OCT working distances.” Furthermore, nothing in the prior art when viewed with Swanson obviates this deficiency. It is important to note that it is not the missing limitation by itself that defines the invention over the prior, but rather it is the combination of the missing limitation with all the limitations of claim 1 together that defines the invention over the prior art. Therefore, the combination of claimed limitations of claim 10 is neither anticipated, nor obviated in view of the prior art
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 recites a surgical operation system. The closest prior art is Swanson. Swanson discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 on which claim 12 is dependent on as outlined above. However, Swanson fails to fully disclose “wherein the optical sensor is configured to guide light of different spectral widths into different directions and/or spatial regions of the plurality of directions and/or spatial regions and capture light arriving therefrom, with the optical coherence tomography measuring device being configured to assign the different directions and/or spatial regions on the basis of the different spectral widths”. Furthermore, nothing in the prior art when viewed with Swanson obviates this deficiency. It is important to note that it is not the missing limitation by itself that defines the invention over the prior, but rather it is the combination of the missing limitation with all the limitations of claim 1 together that defines the invention over the prior art. Therefore, the combination of claimed limitations of claim 12 is neither anticipated, nor obviated in view of the prior art
Regarding claim 17-18:
Claim 17 is the broadest claim of this group of claims. Claim 17 recites a surgical operation system. The closest prior art is Swanson. Swanson discloses the invention substantially as claimed including all the limitations of claim 1 on which claim 17 is dependent on as outlined above. However, Swanson fails to fully disclose “wherein the surgical operating system is configured to temporally sweep a wavelength of the light guided into the different directions and/or spatial regions, with the optical sensor being configured to successively guide the light, matched to the wavelength, into the different directions and/or spatial regions and to capture light arriving therefrom, with the optical coherence tomography measuring device being configured to assign the different directions and/or spatial regions in a manner matched to the wavelength.” Furthermore, nothing in the prior art when viewed with Swanson obviates this deficiency. It is important to note that it is not the missing limitation by itself that defines the invention over the prior, but rather it is the combination of the missing limitation with all the limitations of claim 1 together that defines the invention over the prior art. Therefore, the combination of claimed limitations of claim 17 is neither anticipated, nor obviated in view of the prior art
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, NIKETA PATEL can be reached at 571-272-4156. 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.
SEBASTIAN X LUKJAN
/SXL/Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/NIKETA PATEL/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
Prosecution Insights