Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 (claims 1014, 21-22) in the reply filed on 05/28/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-10, 13-14, 21-22 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yun (US 2006/0244973) in view of Dickensheets (US 2007/0035855).
With respect to claims 1, 21 Yun discloses a An elongate catheter body (Yun - para 0020);
b) A source of optical radiation (Yun - fig 5, item 100);
c) An optical fiber providing a common path for optical radiation reflected from a reference and a target (Yun - fig 5, item 104);
d) A detector to receive the optical radiation reflected from the reference and the target (Yun - para 0011 & 0016);
However Yun fails to teach an interface medium at the reference interface and in optical contact with the distal end and as a mirror in the embedding medium comprising a silicon die having a reflective coating.
Dickensheets in the same field of endeavor, discloses an interface medium at the reference interface and in optical contact with the distal end of the optical fiber (Dickensheets '855 - para 0059); and a mirror in the embedding medium comprising a silicon die having a reflective coating, (see para. 0055);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention to modify Yun to include the apparatus, as taught by Dickensheets '855. The motivation being to provide a means of enabling the study of optical energy through much different specimens (i.e., air to water or water to oil) with different indexes of refractions, while correcting for spherical aberrations (i.e., "fish bowl") effect.
Yun further discloses a processor to generate an image of the target based upon the optical radiation received by the detector (Yun - fig 11; para 0020 & 0046).
With respect to claims 2, 3 Yun in view of Dickensheets disclose wherein the reflective coating is metallic (see para 0055, Dickensheets).
With respect to 4, in their broadly recited form and as recited by applicant, the mathematical formula is obviously disclosed by the Yun - Dickensheets '855 apparatus because calculating refractive indexes is a well- known derivation of Fresnel equations.
With respect to claims 6-9, Yun in view of Dickensheets discloses further comprising an adhesion layer between the silicon die and the reflective, wherein the adhesion layer comprises nickel, titanium, or chromium, wherein the adhesion layer is between 50 A and 200 A thick, wherein the adhesion layer is about 100 A thick (see Dickensheets para. 0056).
With respect to claim 10, Yun in view of Dickensheets disclose wherein the interface medium comprises an adhesive (see Dickesheets, para. 0046).
With respect to claim 13, Yun in view of Dickensheets disclose wherein the interface medium is a solid transparent medium (see Dickensheets, para. 0059).
With respect to claims 14, 22 Yun in view of Dickensheets disclose wherein the source of optical radiation is configured to provide swept-source radiation (see Yun fig, 5, item 100).
Claim 5 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yun - Dickensheets '855 apparatus as applied to claim 2 respectively above, and further in view of Dickensheets (US Patent No. 5,907,425) hereinafter Dickensheets '425.
Yun - Dickensheets '855 discloses substantially all the features of the claimed invention. The Yun - Dickensheets '855 apparatus does not explicitly disclose wherein the metallic coating is at least 2,800 angstroms.
Dickensheets '425 teaches a miniature scanning confocal microscope. Dickensheets '425 teaches wherein the metallic coating (i.e., top plate) is ground and polished to a final thickness of 25 µm (col 7 lines 27 - 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Dickensheets '855 to include the apparatus, as taught by Dickensheets '425. The motivation being that using a silicon plate for the mirror, insures a rigid, optically flat surface that did not distort during scanning and at a thickness of 25 µm it suffer minimal bowing (Dickensheets '425 - col 7 lines 45 - 48).
Claim 11-12 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yun - Dickensheets '855 apparatus as applied to claim 1, respectively above, and further in view of Warden et al. (US Patent Publication No. 2005/0141843) hereinafter Warden.
Regarding claims 11, 12the Yun - Dickensheets '855 apparatus discloses substantially all the features of the claimed invention. The Yun - Dickensheets '855 apparatus does not explicitly disclose wherein the mirror is at least 95% or 98% reflective.
Warden teaches a waveguide comprising scattered light detected particles. Warden teaches a mirror that is at least 95% or 98% reflective (para 0072).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill, in the art at the time of the invention to modify the Yun - Dickensheets '855 apparatus to include the apparatus, as taught by Warden. The motivation being that an increase in angle Θ of the incident light onto a mirror with high reflectivity will yield a higher intensity value of the reflected light (Warden - para 0071 - 0075).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M SANTOS RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Anne M. Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/JOSEPH M SANTOS RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights