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 .
Priority
The applicant’s claim for domestic benefit is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 13 February 2025, 07 April 2025, and 28 May 2026 were filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-15 are pending in the application.
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) mentioned in the description: thermoelectric cooler 114 recited in paragraph 0024. 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 Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 13, line 1 recites “the computer is a signal board computer”. It is unclear what a “signal board computer” is, however, the examiner assumes the term “signal” is intended to be “single”, thus making line 1 recite “the computer is a single board computer”. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 5-7 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.
Regarding claim 5, line 7 recites the limitation “the sample”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 5 does not previously recite ‘a sample’. Claim 5 does recite directing light towards an eye, but it is unclear if “the sample” is intended to refer to the eye, or if the sample represents something different. Therefore, claim 5 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Claims 6-7 depend on claim 5 and are therefore also rejected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). The examiner assumes “the sample” recited on line 7 of claim 5 is supposed to be ‘the eye’. If this is applicant’s intent, please amend accordingly.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tumlinson et al. (US 2017/0231488 A1, of record), hereinafter Tumlinson.
Regarding claim 1, Tumlinson teaches an optical coherence tomography (OCT) system (abstract, Fig. 2A-B, paragraphs 0029-0039) comprising:
a swept laser source (Fig. 2A source 102, paragraph 0034) configured to generate a beam comprising multiple spatial modes in at least one of a transverse or lateral direction (see Fig. 3B, 4B, paragraphs 0037, 0039);
an interferometer free-space (Fig. 2A-B, paragraphs 0012, 0030, 0034) coupled to the swept laser source (see Fig. 2A-B), the interferometer configured to receive the beam comprising multiple spatial modes and to form it into a line-shaped illumination projected onto a sample (Fig. 2A-B sample 110, paragraphs 0013, 0031-0034), wherein the free-space coupling preserves the multiple spatial modes of the beam (see Fig. 3B and 4B where the right image in each of these Figures shows the multiple spatial modes preserved);
a line-field detector (Fig. 2A-B 2D sensor 101, paragraphs 0013, 0031-0034) configured to detect interference signals resulting from the illumination of the sample with the line-shaped beam (abstract, paragraph 0034); and
wherein the preservation of the multiple spatial modes in the beam results in a line-shaped illumination with a more uniform intensity profile across its length when projected onto the sample, enhancing imaging performance by mitigating Gaussian power roll-off associated with single spatial mode beams (the preservation of multiple spatial modes, as described by Tumlinson (see Fig. 3B, 4B, paragraphs 0037, 0039), inherently creates a more uniform illumination intensity profile across its length when projected onto the sample and enhances imaging performance by mitigating Gaussian power roll-off associated with single spatial mode beams).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumlinson (US 2017/0231488 A1, of record) in view of Preciado et al. (US 2025/0082199 A1), hereinafter Preciado.
Regarding claim 2, Tumlinson teaches the OCT system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the interferometer includes line-forming optics (Fig. 2A line generating optics 104) comprising at least one lens configured to form the beam into the line-shaped illumination (see Fig. 2A, paragraph 0034).
Tumlinson does not teach the line-forming optics comprises at least one cylindrical lens configured to form the beam into the line-shaped illumination.
However, the examiner takes official notice that the use of cylindrical lenses to form light beams into line-shaped illumination are well known in the art (e.g. see Preciado paragraph 0071).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have the line-forming optics of Tumlinson comprise at least one cylindrical lens configured to form the beam into line-shaped illumination for the benefit of enhancing the uniformity of the line-shaped illumination.
Yet remaining, Tumlinson does not teach the at least one cylindrical lens of the line-forming optics has an aspect ratio of at least 10:1 measured at full width at half maximum (FWHM).
However, Tumlinson teaches the generation of a line shaped beam of light that is substantially larger in width than it is in height (see Tumlinson Fig. 3B). To generate such a illumination distribution, the at least one cylindrical lens of the line-forming optics needs to have an aspect ratio that enables the generation of a line-shaped beam with a width that is substantially longer than its height when measured at FWHM. Thus, the aspect ratio of the at least one cylindrical lens of the line-forming optics of Tumlinson is a result effective variable, in that, the closer the aspect ratio is to 1:1, the less the illumination pattern is shaped like a line, reducing scanning quality.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the of the at least one cylindrical lens of the line-forming optics of Tumlinson to have an aspect ratio of at least 10:1 measured at FWHM, since determining the optimum aspect ratio to generate a desired line-shaped illumination beam to yield a high scanning quality is based on a result-effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tumlinson (US 2017/0231488 A1, of record).
Regarding claim 3, Tumlinson teaches the OCT system of claim 1, as outlined above, but does not teach the line-shaped illumination projected onto the sample has a length of at least 5 millimeters when projected onto the sample surface.
However, Tumlinson teaches the line-shaped illumination is projected onto an eye pupil and scanned laterally across the pupil area (see Fig. 3B, 4B right images, paragraphs 0043-0044). A fully dilated pupil typically has a diameter in the range of 4 mm to 8 mm. Therefore, in order to provide adequate scans of the pupil, the length of the line-shaped illumination pattern of Tumlinson must be large enough to scan at least the majority of the eye pupil. Thus, the length of the line-shaped illumination pattern is a result-effective variable, in that, if length of the line is too short, then an adequate scan of the eye pupil cannot be achieved, which would potentially cause crucial pupil information to be missed in an eye scan.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the OCT system of Tumlinson to have the length of the line-shaped illumination pattern projected onto the sample be at least 5 millimeters, since determining the optimum length to ensure that an eye pupil is adequately scanned such that crucial pupil information of the eye is not missed is based on a result-effective variable, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Regarding claim 4, Tumlinson teaches the OCT system of claim 1, as outlined above, and further teaches the line-field detector comprises a linear array of pixels (paragraphs 0034 and 0042 reciting a 2D array sensor having a plurality of elements; see also paragraph 0046 referring to pixel values of the sensor). Tumlinson does not teach the linear array of pixels is configured to capture at least 500 line interference signals during each sweep period of the swept laser source.
However, Tumlinson recites that the 2D array sensor data is processed to reconstruct a B-scan image of the sample (see paragraphs 0012, 0043-0046, Fig. 6A-E). Reconstructing a B-scan requires the acquisition of several hundreds of interference signals. If the amount of acquired interference signals is too low, the quality of the B-scan image deteriorates, leading to inaccurate results and unclear images. Thus, the amount of line interference signals that need to be acquired during a sweep period of the swept laser source is a results effective variable, in that, if not enough line interference signals are acquired, the B-scan image quality will deteriorate, leading to unclear images and/or unusable information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the OCT system of Tumlinson to have the linear array of pixels be configured to capture at least 500 line interference signals during each sweep period of the swept laser source, since determining the optimum amount of line interference signals to capture from a sweep period of the swept laser source to ensure the generation of high quality/resolution images from B-scans is based on a result-effective variable, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preciado (US 2025/0082199 A1) in view of Gerlach (US 2009/0115967 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Preciado teaches an optical coherence tomography (OCT) system (abstract, Fig. 1 FD-OCT system, Fig. 3B) comprising:
a swept laser source (Fig. 3B OCT light source, paragraph 0070) configured to generate a line-shaped illumination beam (paragraphs 0070-0071);
an interferometer (Fig. 3B interferometer 322) coupled to the swept laser source (see Fig. 3B, paragraph 0072), the interferometer configured to direct the line-shaped illumination beam toward an eye (see Fig. 3B, paragraphs 0073-0076);
a scanning mirror and a dichroic mirror (Fig. 3B first and second scanning elements 312 and 314 and beamsplitter 333, paragraph 0078) positioned in the sample arm of the interferometer (Fig. 3B sample arm 324), the scanning mirror and a dichroic mirror configured to:
reflect the line-shaped illumination beam toward the eye (see Fig. 3B, paragraph 0078) while rotating around an axis parallel to the length of the line-shaped beam to scan the beam across the eye in a direction orthogonal to its length (paragraphs 0076, 0122, 0128), thereby performing a paintbrush scan (the scanning described by Preciado effectively performs a paintbrush scan; see also paragraph 0123); and
transmit light from a fixation target display (Fig. 3B fixation target 335, paragraph 0078) through the scanning mirror and a dichroic mirror toward the eye (paragraph 0078), allowing a user to view the fixation target during scanning (paragraph 0078);
a line-field detector (Fig. 3B detector 323, paragraphs 0080-0081) configured to detect interference signals resulting from the illumination of the eye with the scanned line-shaped beam (paragraph 0073, 0080-0081);
wherein the scanning mirror and a dichroic mirror enables simultaneous paintbrush scanning of the line-shaped beam and transmission of the fixation target to the user (paragraph 0078), enhancing imaging performance and user alignment in the OCT system (this is the effect produced by operating the OCT system in the manner described in at least paragraph 0078 of Preciado).
While Preciado teaches a scanning mirror that is separate from a dichroic mirror (see Fig. 3B), Preciado does not teach a scanning dichroic mirror.
Gerlach, which relates to OCT systems for eye scanning, teaches a similar OCT system to Preciado (see Gerlach Fig. 2 having fixation object 28 and eye 24) that comprises a scanning dichroic mirror instead of separate scanning and dichroic mirrors (Gerlach: Fig. 2 controllable reflector 21, paragraph 0031 “reflector 21 which has dichroic characteristics so that it is transmissive for the fixation beam bundle 25 and reflective for the therapy beam and/or diagnosis beam 20”; see also paragraphs 0034, 0038, 0040).
The separate scanning and dichroic mirrors of Preciado and the controllable reflector of Gerlach perform the same function of scanning a light beam across the surface of an eye while simultaneously transmitting light from a fixation target. A skilled artisan would have recognized, before the effective filing date of the instant application, that the separate scanning and dichroic mirrors of Preciado could be substituted for the controllable reflector of Gerlach because both devices serve the purpose of scanning a light beam across the surface of an eye while simultaneously transmitting light from a fixation target. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, since the controllable reflector of Gerlach requires less optical components to perform the same function, the substitution achieves the predictable result of simplifying the optics of the OCT system whilst simultaneously making it more compact.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a simple substitution of the separate scanning and dichroic mirrors of Preciado with the scanning dichroic mirror of Gerlach. This substitution would yield the predictable result of simplifying the optics of the OCT system whilst simultaneously making the OCT system more compact due to requirement of less optical components to perform the scanning of the eye and transmission of light from the fixation target (see Gerlach paragraphs 0012-0015, 0055-0057).
Regarding claim 7, Preciado, as modified by Gerlach, teaches the OCT system of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches a fixation target display configured to present a visual target at optical infinity (Preciado: paragraphs 0014, 0062-0065, 0078), assisting the user in maintaining a steady gaze during the scanning process (Preciado: paragraphs 0014, 0062-0065, 0078).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preciado in view of Gerlach as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Ferguson et al. (US 2007/0263171 A1), hereinafter Ferguson.
Regarding claim 6, Preciado, as modified by Gerlach, teaches the OCT system of claim 5, as outlined above, and further teaches the scanning dichroic mirror is mounted on an actuator (Gerlach: paragraphs 0024 and 0029) configured to rotate the mirror at a controlled rate (Gerlach: paragraphs 0039-0042), enabling precise scanning of the line-shaped beam across the eye in synchronization with the swept laser source (this is an inherent effect of controlling the rotation speed of the actuator of Gerlach).
Preciado as modified by Gerlach does not teach that the actuator is a galvanometer.
Ferguson, which relates to OCT systems, teaches a scanning dichroic mirror mounted to a galvanometer (Ferguson: Fig. 2 dichroic splitter 19, paragraph 0048 “dichroic beam splitter 19 can be mounted on an x-axis galvanometer”).
The actuator of Preciado (as modified by Gerlach) and the galvanometer of Ferguson perform the same function providing movement to a dichroic mirror. A skilled artisan would have recognized, before the effective filing date of the instant application, that the actuator of Preciado (as modified by Gerlach) could be substituted for the galvanometer of Ferguson because both devices serve the purpose of rotating the scanning dichroic mirror. Furthermore, a skilled artisan would have been able to carry out the substitution. Finally, since galvanometers provide rapid response times, the substitution achieves the predictable result of more precise scanning at quicker rates.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to have a simple substitution of the actuator of Preciado (as modified by Gerlach) with the galvanometer of Ferguson. This substitution would yield the predictable result of enhancing the precision and quickness of scanning due to rapid response times of galvanometers.
Claims 8-9 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preciado (US 2025/0082199 A1) in view of Flanders et al. (US 2011/0051143 A1), hereinafter Flanders.
Regarding claim 8, Preciado teaches an optical coherence tomography (OCT) system (abstract, Fig. 1 FD-OCT system, Fig. 3B) comprising:
a swept laser source (Fig. 3B OCT light source, paragraph 0070) configured to generate a line-shaped illumination beam (paragraphs 0070-0071);
an interferometer (Fig. 3B interferometer 322) coupled to the swept laser source (see Fig. 3B, paragraph 0072), the interferometer configured to direct the line-shaped illumination beam toward a sample (see Fig. 3B, paragraphs 0073-0076);
a line-field detector (Fig. 3B detector 323, paragraphs 0080-0081) configured to detect interference signals resulting from the illumination of the sample with the line-shaped beam (paragraph 0073, 0080-0081);
an integrated computer (Fig. 1 controller 140, paragraphs 0103-0105) within the OCT system (see Fig. 1, paragraphs 0104-0105), the integrated computer configured to:
control the operation of the swept laser source and the line-field detector (abstract, Fig. 1, paragraphs 0104-0105 controller controls OCT system);
process the interference signals detected by the line-field detector to generate cross-sectional images of the sample (paragraph 0004-0006, 0068, 0080-0081, 0104-0105);
wherein the integration of the computer within the OCT system enables real-time control and processing (this is the inherent effect of the integration of a controller into a OCT system; see also paragraphs 0059-0060 discussing the generation of data for quick analysis), enhancing imaging performance and system compactness (this is an inherent effect of the integration of a controller into a OCT, see Fig. 1).
Preciado does not teach the computer is configured to store a tuning function for adjusting an angle of a filter within the swept laser source to achieve linear frequency sweeping.
Flanders, which relates to swept source OCT, teaches a controller (Flanders: Fig. 1 tuning controller 152) configured to store a tuning function for adjusting an angle of a filter within a swept laser source to achieve linear frequency sweeping (Flanders: paragraphs 0071-0078, namely paragraph 0073 reciting the use of angle-tuned filters and paragraph 0076 reciting the generation of linear frequency sweeping).
Since Preciado recites that any swept source can be used (Preciado: paragraph 0070), it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify OCT system of Preciado to have the swept source laser include a filter that is controlled by the controller such that the controller stores a tuning function for adjusting an angle of the filter within the swept laser source to achieve linear frequency sweeping, as taught by Flanders, for the benefit of enhancing imaging depth and providing more controllable scanning (see Flanders paragraphs 0070 and 0073-0078).
Regarding claim 9, Preciado, as modified by Flanders, teaches the OCT system of claim 8, as outlined above, and further teaches the integrated computer comprises a single-board computer (Preciado: paragraph 0105 “the controller 140 is described in relation to a single programmable signal processing hardware 400”) with an integrated graphics processing unit (GPU) (Preciado: paragraph 0104) configured to perform real-time Fourier transforms on the interference signals (Preciado: paragraph 0004-0006, 0080-0081; the generation of OCT data from a FD-OCT system requires Fourier transforms of interference signals as described in paragraph 0004).
Regarding claim 11, Preciado, as modified by Flanders, teaches the OCT system of claim 8, as outlined above, and further teaches comprising a display connected to the integrated computer (Preciado: Fig. 1 map display device 142), the display configured to present the generated cross-sectional images to a user in real-time (Preciado: paragraph 0106).
Regarding claim 12, Preciado, as modified by Flanders, teaches the OCT system of claim 8, as outlined above, and further teaches the integrated computer is configured to synchronize the operation of the swept laser source with the line-field detector (Preciado: paragraph 0004, 0070). Preciado, as modified by Flanders, does not teach the number of line interference signals captured during each sweep period of the swept laser source.
However, Preciado recites the capturing of OCT data from a plurality of portions of an eye (Preciado: paragraphs 0009-0010). This data is collected to generate A-scans for each of the plurality of points along a line of light from the swept source (Preciado: paragraphs 0005-0006, 0068, 0074). These A-scans are used to generate B-scans, which are used to generate C-scans (Preciado: paragraphs 0068, 0074). In order to generate high resolution B-scan and C-scan images, several hundred interference signals are needed to be captured. If the amount of acquired interference signals is too low, the quality of the B-scan and C-scan images deteriorates, leading to inaccurate results and unclear images. Thus, the amount of line interference signals that need to be acquired during a sweep period of the swept laser source is a results effective variable, in that, if not enough line interference signals are acquired, the B-scan and C-scan image quality will deteriorate, leading to unclear images and/or unusable information.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the OCT system of Preciado (as modified by Flanders) to have the line-field detector be configured to capture at least 500 line interference signals during each sweep period of the swept laser source, since determining the optimum amount of line interference signals to capture from a sweep period of the swept laser source to ensure the generation of high quality/resolution images from B- and C-scans is based on a result-effective variable, and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that determining the optimum value of a result-effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP § 2144.05 section II.
Regarding claim 13, Preciado, as modified by Flanders, teaches the OCT system of claim 8, as outlined above, and further teaches the computer is a single board computer (Preciado: paragraph 0105 “the controller 140 is described in relation to a single programmable signal processing hardware 400”).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preciado in view of Flanders as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Debuc (US 2012/0150029 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Preciado, as modified by Flanders, teaches the OCT system of claim 8, as outlined above, but does not teach the integrated computer is configured to run open-source OCT processing software that allows for integration of custom OCT systems and software modules.
Debuc, which relates to OCT systems, teaches a computer configured to run open-source OCT processing software that allows for integration of custom OCT systems and software modules (Debuc: paragraphs 0059, 0132, 0185).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the integrated computer of Preciado (as modified by Flanders) to be configured to run open-source OCT processing software that allows for integration of custom OCT systems and software modules, as taught by Debuc, for the benefit of increasing the analysis capabilities of the OCT system.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preciado in view of Flanders as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Everett et al. (US 2024/0081638 A1), hereinafter Everett.
Regarding claim 14, Preciado, as modified by Flanders, teaches the OCT system of claim 8, as outlined above, but does not teach the computer is mounted to one side of a bench and optics of the interferometer are installed on the other side of the bench.
Everett, which relates to OCT systems, teaches a micro-bench in which the optics of an interferometer are installed on (Everett: Fig. 2A bench 13 housing optics of OCT system 11, see paragraph 0071). Everett further teaches a controller that can be mounted to the micro-bench as well (Everett: Fig. 1E computer system, paragraph 0159).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the OCT system of Preciado (as modified by Flanders) to include a bench on which the computer and optics of the interferometer are installed on, as taught by Everett, for the benefit of reducing the need for bulk optics, greatly reducing the cost of the OCT system, and eliminating the need for active alignment of optical elements (see Everett paragraphs 0011-0013).
Everett does not specify the positioning of the controller on the bench with respect to the optics of the interferometer, i.e., Everett does not teach the computer is mounted to one side of a bench and optics of the interferometer are installed on the other side of the bench. However, a skilled artisan would have found it beneficial to mount the computer of Everett to one side of the bench substrate and the optics of the interferometer to the other side of the bench substrate as doing so enables a more compact OCT system by eliminating the need for every component of the OCT system to reside on the same side of the optical bench.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the bench of Preciado (as modified by Flanders and Everett) to have the computer is mounted to one side of a bench and optics of the interferometer are installed on the other side of the bench, for the benefit of further increasing the compactness of the OCT system.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Preciado in view of Flanders and Everett as applied to claims 8 and 14 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US 2018/0031363 A1), hereinafter Johnson.
Regarding claim 15, Preciado, as modified by Flanders and Everett, teaches the OCT system of claim 14, as outline above, but does not teach a bottom plate for supporting the bench.
Johnson, which relates to OCT systems with optical benches, teaches a bottom plate for supporting a bench (Johnson: Fig. 11A-B bench 550 and package 560 having an inner bottom panel, see paragraph 0095).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the OCT system of Preciado (as modified by Flanders and Everett) to have a bottom plate for supporting the bench, as taught by Johnson, for the benefit of enhancing the security of the optical components of the bench even further.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited on the attached PTO-892 that are not specifically mentioned above, but are considered relevant to applicant’s disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH J HANEY whose telephone number is (571)270-1282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm eastern time.
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, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached at (571) 270-5789. 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.
/NOAH J. HANEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2877 /MICHELLE M IACOLETTI/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights