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 Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 has a dependency on Claim 29 which doesn’t exist. From context clues the examiner finds the claim should depend on claim 8 and will treat it as such for purposes of prosecution. 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 8, 9, & 19-21 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 8, the applicant claims “Capturing a signal … including a first reflection with the same speed,” but it isn’t clear what the first reflections speed is the same as;
In Step b the applicant claims “if the first reflection arises from a signal surface, cutting the first reflection from the remainder of the signal,” but it isn’t clear that a reflection can be from multiple surfaces since those would result in separate signals.
Thus, for these reasons the scope of the claim is indefinite.
Claim 9 is rejected based upon its dependency.
Regarding Claim 19, the applicant claims, “stringing together the depth scans” however it isn’t clear what this is meant by this term and does not appear to be a standard term used in the industry. Thus, the scope of the limitation is unclear.
Regarding Claim 20, the applicant claims, “interpreting or extrapolating axial positions of attenuated or missing structure signals intuitively,” however this limitations poses several questions. First, what attenuate or missing structure signals, and secondly how can a machine “intuitively” interpret or extrapolate them? Thus, the scope is indefinite and the claim will be rejected based on the art that shows the steps of the claims it depends from.
Regarding Claim 21, the applicant claims, “using reference signals from other depth scans,” but it isn’t clear what other depth scans are being referenced here. This leads one to wonder if they are depth scans from previous measurements or those being performed without being claims simultaneously. Further, it isn’t clear how the reference signals are being taken or provided. Thus, this claims scope is indefinite.
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) 2, 4, 6, 7, & 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schmoll et al (PGPub 20170105618) (Schmoll).
Regarding Claim 2, Schmoll discloses a method for compensating the artifacts generated in measurement signals of swept source OCT systems by moving measurement objects, the method comprising:
implementing signal reconstruction without aid of additional reference signals in respect of movement of the measurement objects and only by application of especially adapted algorithms (Paragraphs 107 thru 109). This reconstruction does not require additional reference signals in respect to movement of the measurement objects; and
implementing the compensation by application of a fractional Fourier transform (FRFT) (Paragraph 247).
Regarding Claim 4, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schmoll discloses determining the quality of a signal (Fig. 17, Steps 1706 & 1707) and then correcting for a signal below a given quality by averaging it over a given depth (Paragraphs 256-261). Thus, by averaging the signal to remove the axial phase shifts the method disclosed produces a quality function of signal components summed over measurement depth that lies above a defined threshold.
Regarding Claim 6, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schmoll discloses further comprising compensating at least one of axial movement artifacts, lateral movement artifacts, and further movement artifacts (Paragraphs 261 & 262).
Regarding Claim 7, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schmoll discloses further comprising implementing the compensation by application of a relinearization by remapping (Step 1709, Paragraph 262).
Regarding Claim 16 Schmoll discloses the aforementioned. Further, Schmoll discloses wherein the measurement signals originate from OCT systems, the tunable laser of which has a central wavelength between 700 and 1400 nm (Paragraph 280).
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.
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(s) 3 & 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmoll in view of Lippok et al (Norman Lippok, Stéphane Coen, Poul Nielsen, and Frédérique Vanholsbeeck, "Dispersion compensation in Fourier domain optical coherence tomography using the fractional Fourier transform," Opt. Express 20, 23398-23413 (2012)) (Lippok).
Regarding Claim 3, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose a) iteratively altering a free parameter of the FRFT, until a quality function reaches a maximum value,b) calculating the FRFT of the measured signal for a certain number of angles,c) determining a parameter with the maximum signal value according to the FRFT,d) using said FRFT for the relinearization of the entire original signal, ande) wherein a reconstructed, non-chirped signal arises by application of the relinearization by remapping;
However, Lippok discloses a method of dispersion compensation, comprising:
a) iteratively altering a free parameter (aopt) of the FRFT until a quality function (PSF) reaches a maximum value (Pg 23406, 1st Paragraph, Fig. 4a);
b) calculating the FRFT of the measured signal for a certain number of angles (δ, Pg 23408, 1st Paragraph);
c) determining a parameter with the maximum signal value according to the FRFT (Pg 23408, 1st Paragraph). The optimized aopt resulting from the described calculations would meet this;
d) using said FRFT for the relinearization of the entire original signal (Fig. 10d), and
e) wherein a reconstructed, non-chirped signal arises by application of the relinearization by remapping. This is met since this is the result of the above method;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schmoll with a) iteratively altering a free parameter of the FRFT, until a quality function reaches a maximum value,b) calculating the FRFT of the measured signal for a certain number of angles,c) determining a parameter with the maximum signal value according to the FRFT,d) using said FRFT for the relinearization of the entire original signal, ande) wherein a reconstructed, non-chirped signal arises by application of the relinearization by remapping because such a method can used to apply local motion corrections which offer a more accurate resulting image.
Regarding Claim 5, Schmoll as modified by Lippok discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose restricting the free parameter to expected axial speeds;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schmoll as modified by Lippok with restricting the free parameter to expected axial speeds because this will reduce computational time and resources used to determine the most optimal signal.
Claim(s) 10-15, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmoll in view of Grulkowski et al (Grulkowski I, Liu JJ, Potsaid B, Jayaraman V, Lu CD, Jiang J, Cable AE, Duker JS, Fujimoto JG. Retinal, anterior segment and full eye imaging using ultrahigh speed swept source OCT with vertical-cavity surface emitting lasers. Biomed Opt Express. 2012 Nov 1;3(11):2733-51. doi: 10.1364/BOE.3.002733. Epub 2012 Oct 3. PMID: 23162712; PMCID: PMC3493240.) (Grulkowski).
Regarding Claim 10, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have tuning frequencies <2 kHz;
However, Grulkowski teaches an SS-OCT for eye examination, comprising:
wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have tuning frequencies <2 kHz (Table 1, DBR laser, 250HZ);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schmoll with wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have tuning frequencies <2 kHz because the laser is functionally equivalent to the ones disclosed in Schmoll and would be chosen based upon such factors as cost, availability, amount of pixels in the detector that can cause a bottleneck in the data collection rate, and require sweep time.
Regarding Claim 11, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have tuning frequencies <100 Hz;
However, Grulkowski teaches an SS-OCT for eye examination, comprising:
wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have tuning frequencies <100 Hz (Table 1, Macroscopic external cavity lasers scanning mirror with grating, 10HZ);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schmoll with wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have tuning frequencies <100 Hz because the laser is functionally equivalent to the ones disclosed in Schmoll and would be chosen based upon such factors as cost, availability, amount of pixels in the detector that can cause a bottleneck in the data collection rate, and require sweep time.
Regarding Claims 12 & 13, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have coherence lengths of the tunable laser of 10 mm to 1000 mm; wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have coherence lengths of the tunable laser of 20 to 100 mm;
However, Grulkowski teaches an SS-OCT for eye examination, comprising:
wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have coherence lengths of the tunable laser of 10 mm to 1000 mm (Table 1, DBR laser with Bragg reflector, >40 mm);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schmoll with wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have coherence lengths of the tunable laser of 10 mm to 1000 mm; wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have coherence lengths of the tunable laser of 20 to 100 mm; because the laser is functionally equivalent to the ones disclosed in Schmoll and would be chosen based upon such factors as cost, availability, amount of pixels in the detector that can cause a bottleneck in the data collection rate, and require sweep time.
Regarding Claims 14 & 15, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measurement signals originate from OCT systems with a sweep range between 1 and 100 nm; wherein the measurement signals originate from OCT systems with a sweep range between 2 and 20 nm;
However, Grulkowski teaches an SS-OCT for eye examination, comprising:
wherein the measurement signals originate from OCT systems with a sweep range between 1 and 100 nm (Table 1, Macroscopic external cavity lasers scanning mirror with grating, 20 nm);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schmoll with wherein the measurement signals originate from OCT systems with a sweep range between 1 and 100 nm; wherein the measurement signals originate from OCT systems with a sweep range between 2 and 20 nm because the laser is functionally equivalent to the ones disclosed in Schmoll and would be chosen based upon such factors as cost, availability, amount of pixels in the detector that can cause a bottleneck in the data collection rate, and require sweep time.
Regarding Claim 17, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the measurement signals originate from OCT systems, the tunable laser of which has a central wavelength around 780, 830, 1050 or 1300 nm;
However, Grulkowski teaches an SS-OCT for eye examination, comprising:
wherein the measurement signals originate from OCT systems, the tunable laser of which has a central wavelength around 780, 830, 1050 or 1300 nm (Table 1, Fiber ring lasers with intracavity fiber Fabry-Perot tunable filter, 1300 nm);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schmoll with wherein the measurement signals originate from slowly tuned swept source systems, which have tuning frequencies <100 Hz because the laser is functionally equivalent to the ones disclosed in Schmoll and would be chosen based upon such factors as cost, availability, amount of pixels in the detector that can cause a bottleneck in the data collection rate, and require sweep time.
Claim(s) 18-21, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmoll in view of Santodomingo-Rubido et al (Santodomingo-Rubido J, Mallen EAH, Gilmartin B, et al A new non-contact optical device for ocular biometry British Journal of Ophthalmology 2002;86:458-462.) (Rubido).
Regarding Claim 18, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose ascertaining the eye length from temporal M-scans, wherein there is a two-dimensional signal representation with depth coordinate and time coordinate;
However, Rubido discloses ascertaining the eye length from temporal M-scans, wherein there is a two-dimensional signal representation with depth coordinate and time coordinate (Fig. 1, Page 459, 2nd thru 4th paragraphs). Three separate measurements are taken of the axial length thus each would be associated with a time and depth coordinate;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Schmoll with ascertaining the eye length from temporal M-scans, wherein there is a two-dimensional signal representation with depth coordinate and time coordinate because eye length can be used for diagnostic purposes in eye examination.
Regarding Claim 19, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose stringing together the depth scans showing the local reflectivity levels along the depth axis for the two-dimensional signal representation;
However, Rubido discloses using two mirrors (M1 & M2) which produce two different wavefronts (CB1 and CB2) that simultaneously are used to measure the eye length and produce local reflectivity levels (CB2R, CB1R, CB2C, CB1C) along the depth axis of for the two-dimensional signal representation;
The reasons for combination are the same as above.
Regarding Claim 20, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose for the two-dimensional signal representation, interpolating or extrapolating axial positions of attenuated or missing structure signals intuitively. This is met by the above disclosure (Fig. 1, Page 459, 2nd thru 4th paragraphs).
The reasons for combination are the same as above.
Regarding Claim 21, Schmoll discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose using reference signals from other depth scans for the interpolation or extrapolation of structure signals;
However, Rubido discloses using reference signals from other depth scans for the interpolation or extrapolation of structure signals because the system described uses two Mirrors (M1 & M2) to provide two signals one of those can be interpreted as a reference signal (From M2) from other depth scans and since the resulting wavefronts in combination provide information on not only Axial length but corneal curvature this limitation is met.
The reasons for combination are the same as above.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 9 are not rejected by art however due to their current rejection under 112 the exact scope of the claims are unclear and the examiner will not be stating whether they are allowable until that scope is clarified.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 August 22, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights