Office Action 1: Non-Final Rejection (2024-11-15)
Rejection types: 103 - Obviousness, 112 - Written Description/Enablement

CLAIMS:
Claims

1\. An apparatus suitable for optical coherence tomography, OCT, scanning comprising:means for providing a first signal;
means for providing a reference signal;
a photonics integrated circuit comprising (i) means for receiving a reflected first signal, reflected from a subject;
(ii) means for coupling the reflected first signal to the reference signal to provide an interference signal, and
(iii) a variable delay for varying an optical path length of one of the reference signal and the first signal to match the optical path length of the reference signal to an optical path length of the reflected first signal, wherein the variable delay comprises at least one binary switch for selecting between paths of different lengths; and means for analyzing the interference signal.

2\. The apparatus of claim 1, wherein the variable delay comprises a series of binary switches and path elements of different selectable lengths.

3\. The apparatus of claim 2, wherein the path elements are of length L, 2L, etc. up to 2NL,
where N is an integer.
4\. The apparatus of claim 3, wherein the variable delay is a binary delay implementing a delay,SVG {EMBED HERE} 0.1570.217
in steps of L, of 0 to (2x2NL.

5\. The apparatus of claim 2, 3 or 4, wherein the variable delay has N delay path elements and
N+1 binary switches, one binary switch before each delay path element, to selectively switch between a direct path or the delay path element, and one binary switch at the output to selectively switch from the direct path or the final delay path element to an output of the variable delay.

6\. The apparatus of any one of claims 2 to 5, wherein the switches are two-way multiplexing or
demultiplexing switches.

7\. The apparatus of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the variable delay acts on the reference signal.

8\. The apparatus of any one of the preceding claims, wherein one of the paths of different lengths includes a tunable labyrinth with integrated phase shifter.

9\. The apparatus of any one claims 1 to 8, wherein the means for providing the first signal is a broadband light source and the means for analyzing the interference signal is a spectrometer.

10\. The apparatus of claim 9, wherein the spectrometer is implemented as one of an arrayed waveguide grating, AWG, a ring bus, a ring fan-out, a binary asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer, AMZI, or an AMZI fan out.

11\. The apparatus of any one of claims 1 to 8, wherein the means for providing the first signal is a swept laser source and the means for analyzing the interference signal is a point photodetector.

12\. The apparatus of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the means for providing the reference signal is a beam-splitter, wherein the beam-splitter beam-splits the first signal.

13\. The apparatus of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the means for coupling is a 2 x 2 coupler, wherein the 2 x 2 coupler is one of a directional coupler, a multimode interferometer or a Mach-Zender interferometer.

14\. The apparatus of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the photonic integrated circuit comprises a first path for guiding the first signal to a set of imaging optics to the subject and for guiding reflected light from the subject back from through the set of imaging optics to the means for coupling and a second path for guiding the reference signal to a reflector and back to the means for coupling.

15\. The apparatus of claim 14, wherein the first and second paths comprise polarization- maintaining fibres for maintaining polarization of the first signal and the reference signal
respectively.

16\. The apparatus of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the means for remote viewing of the analyzed interference signal is an output image processor and the means for remote control of the variable delay is an on-chip control unit.

17\. A method suitable for performing an optical coherence tomography, OCT, scan comprising:providing a first signal provided by a light source;
providing a reference signal;
reflecting the first signal from a subject and coupling the reflected first signal to the reference signal to provide an interference signal;
adjusting a delay of one of the reference signal and the first signal by a variable delay to match an optical path length of the reference signal to an optical path length of the reflected first signal, wherein the step of adjusting comprises selecting between paths of different
lengths; andanalyzing the interference signal.

18\. The method of claim 17, comprising automatically selecting between the paths of different lengths until an interference peak is identified in the interference signal.

19\. The method of claim 18, comprising performing image recognition on the interference signal to identify the interference peak. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

OFFICE ACTION:
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b)  CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4-19 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.
Claim 14 recites the limitation the reflected first signal.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation the analyzed interference signal.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation the path elements.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation the reflected first signal.  There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.  Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons because they depend on claim 18.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase etc. renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by etc.), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.  See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claims 4-16 are rejected for the same reasons because they depend on claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, the phrase etc. renders the claim(s) indefinite because the claim(s) include(s) elements not actually disclosed (those encompassed by etc.), thereby rendering the scope of the claim(s) unascertainable.  See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al (Pub. No.:  US 2014/0376000) in view of Hu et al (Pub. No.:  US 2017/0227399).
Regarding claims 1, 4-5, 7-9, 12-15, Swanson et al disclose an apparatus suitable for optical coherence tomography scanning of a subject, the apparatus comprising:
at least one source for providing a first signal and a reference signal [see claims 1, 12] by disclosing a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal [se claim 1];
a photonics integrated circuit [see claim 12, 0006] comprising:
a first path (sample path) for receiving a reflected first signal, reflected from the subject [see claim 12, fig 2] by disclosing a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal [see claim 12];
a second path for coupling the reflected first signal to the reference signal (from the reference path) to provide an interference signal [see claim 12, fig 2] by disclosing a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal [see claim 12];
a variable delay (via an on-chip path delay unit, 0065) for varying an optical path length of one of the reference signal and the first signal to match the optical path length of the reference signal to an optical path length of the reflected first signal [see 0014, 0044, 0065, 0074-0075, 0093, figs 6, 8, 15];
a detector for analyzing and detecting the interference signal [see claim 12, 0006, 0044 and figs 2, 18-22] by disclosing a detection system that detects the interference signal from which a ranging or longitudinal reflectance imaging of a sample positioned in the sample arm may be generated [see claim 12].
Swanson et al don’t mention path elements of L, 2L, etc. up to 2NL, where N is an integer and wherein the variable delay is a binary delay implementing a delay, in steps of L, of 0 to (2x2N-1)L.
Nonetheless, Hu et al disclose a series of binary switches path elements of L, 2L, etc. up to 2NL, where N is an integer and wherein the variable delay is a binary delay implementing a delay, in steps of L, of 0 to (2x2N-1)L [see claims 2-7, 0087-0094, abstract, 0008, 0023, 0029, 0037] by disclosing a cascade of optical switches to increase the tuning range (also referred to as the dynamic range) of optical path length differences and increasing the optical path length differences can increase the resolution of the spectrometer [see 0043].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Swanson et al and Hu et al by using a series of binary switches path elements of L, 2L, etc. up to 2NL, where N is an integer and wherein the variable delay is a binary delay implementing a delay, in steps of L, of 0 to (2x2N-1)L; a cascade of optical switches to increase the tuning range (also referred to as the dynamic range) of optical path length differences and increasing the optical path length differences can increase the resolution of the spectrometer [see 0043].
Regarding claim 5, Swanson et al don’t disclose wherein the variable delay has N delay path elements and N+1 binary switches, one binary switch before each delay path element, to selectively switch between a direct path or the delay path element, one binary switch at the output to selectively switch from the direct path or a final delay path element to an output of the variable delay.
Nonetheless, Hu et al disclose wherein the variable delay has N delay path elements and N+1 binary switches, one binary switch before each delay path element, to selectively switch between a direct path or the delay path element, one binary switch at the output to selectively switch from the direct path or a final delay path element to an output of the variable delay [see claims 2-7, 0087-0094, abstract, 0008, 0023, 0029, 0037] by disclosing a cascade of optical switches to increase the tuning range (also referred to as the dynamic range) of optical path length differences and increasing the optical path length differences can increase the resolution of the spectrometer [see 0043].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Swanson et al and Hu et al by using variable delay has N delay path elements and N+1 binary switches, one binary switch before each delay path element, to selectively switch between a direct path or the delay path element, one binary switch at the output to selectively switch from the direct path or a final delay path element to an output of the variable delay; a cascade of optical switches to increase the tuning range (also referred to as the dynamic range) of optical path length differences and increasing the optical path length differences can increase the resolution of the spectrometer [see 0043].
Regarding claim 7, Swanson et al disclose wherein the variable delay acts as on the reference signal [see 0014, 0044, 0065, 0074-0075, 0093, figs 6, 8, 15].
Regarding claim 8, Swanson et al disclose wherein one of the paths of different lengths includes a tunable labyrinth with integrated phase shifter [see 0081, 0115-0116, 0120, 0127].
Regarding claim 9, Swanson et al disclose wherein the at least one source comprises a broadband light source and the detector for analyzing and detecting the interference signal comprises a spectrometer [see 0042] by disclosing interferometric electro-optical detection, for example, ranging, medical imaging, non-destructive evaluation and testing, laser radar, spectroscopy [see 0042].
Regarding claim 12, Swanson et al disclose wherein the at least one source comprises a beam-splitter, and wherein the beam-splitter beam-splits the first signal [see 0119, 0131].
Regarding claim 13, Swanson et al disclose wherein the second path is a 2 x 2 coupler, and wherein the 2 x 2 coupler is one of a directional coupler [see 0123], a multimode interferometer [see 0120] or a Mach-Zender interferometer [see 0125].
Regarding claim 14, Swanson et al disclose wherein the photonic integrated circuit comprises:
a first path for guiding the first signal to a set of imaging optics to the subject and for guiding reflected light from the subject back through the set of imaging optics to the second path for coupling the reflected first signal to the reference signal to provide an interference signal [see claims 1, 12] by disclosing a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal [se claim 1];
a second path for guiding the reference signal to a reflector and back to the second path for coupling the reflected first signal to the reference signal to provide an interference signal [see claims 1, 12] by disclosing a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal [se claim 1].
Regarding claim 15, Swanson et al disclose wherein the first and second paths comprise polarization-maintaining fibers for maintaining polarization of the first signal and the reference signal respectively [see 0070, 0077] by disclosing both polarization (states) signals in the fiber maintain the same polarization in the PIC [see 0070].
Regarding claim 16, Swanson et al disclose an output image processor for remote viewing of the analyzed interference signal processor and the an on-chip control unit for remote control of the variable delay [see 0065].
Regarding claim 17, Swanson et al disclose method suitable for performing an optical coherence tomography scan, the method comprising:
providing a first signal provided by a light source [see claims 1, 12] by disclosing a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal [se claim 1];
providing a reference signal [see claims 1, 12];
reflecting the first signal from a subject and coupling the reflected first signal to the reference signal to provide an interference signal [see claims 1, 12] by disclosing a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal [se claim 1];
adjusting a delay of one of the reference signal and the first signal by a variable delay to match an optical path length of the reference signal to an optical path length of the reflected first signal [see 0075, 0096, 0109, 0116],
wherein the step of adjusting comprises selecting between paths of different lengths [see 0093, 0127, 0131] by disclosing various phase shifters are for adjusting optical path lengths [see 0131];
analyzing the interference signal [see claim 12, 0006, 0044 and figs 2, 18-22] by disclosing a detection system that detects the interference signal from which a ranging or longitudinal reflectance imaging of a sample positioned in the sample arm may be generated [see claim 12].
Swanson et al don’t disclose a series of binary switches and path elements of different selectable lengths and wherein the path elements are of length L, 2L, etc. up to 2NL, where N is an integer.
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Swanson et al and Hu et al by using variable delay has N delay path elements and N+1 binary switches, one binary switch before each delay path element, to selectively switch between a direct path or the delay path element, one binary switch at the output to selectively switch from the direct path or a final delay path element to an output of the variable delay; a cascade of optical switches to increase the tuning range (also referred to as the dynamic range) of optical path length differences and increasing the optical path length differences can increase the resolution of the spectrometer [see 0043].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al (Pub. No.:  US 2014/0376000) in view of Gerstel et al (Pub. No.:  US 2007/0237524).
Regarding claim 6, Swanson et al don’t disclose wherein the switches are two-way multiplexing or demultiplexing switches.
Nonetheless, Gerstel et al disclose wherein the switches are two-way multiplexing or demultiplexing switches [see 0039].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Swanson et al and Gerstel et al by using two-way multiplexing or demultiplexing switches; switched multiplexer 64 and demultiplexer 63 can be used for higher value services, such as channels requiring optical protection [see 0039].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al (Pub. No.:  US 2014/0376000) in view of Garcia et al (Pub. No.:  US 2017/0366880)
Regarding claim 10, Swanson et al disclose wherein the spectrometer is implemented as one of an arrayed waveguide grating, AWG, a ring bus, a ring fan-out, a binary asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer or an AMZI fan out [see 0123, 0125].
Swanson et al don’t explicitly mention Mach-Zehnder interferometer is asymmetric.
Nonetheless, Garcia et al disclose an asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer configured to selectively switch the multi-wavelength light signal between an output channel and a loopback path [see claim 19, 0026].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Swanson et al and Isogai et al by using an asymmetric Mach-Zehnder interferometer; Mach–Zehnder interferometers exhibit salient merits of high sensitivity, a high degree of integration, simplicity, and compact in-line measurement, with wealthy physical mechanisms for applications ranging from waveguide, routing, filtering.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al (Pub. No.:  US 2014/0376000) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Isogai et al (Pub. No.:  US 2017/0238798)
Regarding claim 11, Swanson et al disclose wherein the at least one source a swept laser source [see 0135].
Swanson et al don’t disclose a point photodetector.
Nonetheless, Isogai et al disclose the OCT includes a point detector as a detector [see 0024].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Swanson et al and Isogai et al by using a point detector; because it is important that detected points be independent of noise, blurring contrast and geometric shapes.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al (Pub. No.:  US 2014/0376000) in view of Wang et al (Pub. No.:  US 2020/0116489).
Regarding claim 18, Swanson et al disclose method suitable for performing an optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan,
the method comprising providing a first signal provided by a light source;
providing a reference signal [see claim 12, fig 2] by disclosing a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal [see claim 12];
reflecting the first signal from a subject and coupling the reflected first signal to the reference signal to provide an interference signal [see claim 12, fig 2] by disclosing a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal [see claim 12];
adjusting a delay of one of the reference signal and the first signal by a variable delay to match (using adjustable path length device that sets measurement range of interest and include other devices (e.g., polarization rotators, attenuators, lenses, mirrors, etc. see 0051-0052) an optical path length of the reference signal to an optical path length of the reflected first signal [see 0014, 0044, 0051, 0062, 0065, 0074-0075, 0093, figs 6, 8, 15] by disclosing adjustable path length device that sets measurement range of interest and include other devices (e.g., polarization rotators, attenuators, lenses, mirrors, etc.) and  an optional polarization controller that may be automatically or manually adjusted [see 0051-0053];
wherein the step of adjusting comprises selecting between paths of different lengths [see 0051-0053] by disclosing adjustable path length device that sets measurement range of interest and include other devices (e.g., polarization rotators, attenuators, lenses, mirrors, etc.) and an optional polarization controller that may be automatically or manually adjusted [see 0051-0052];
automatically selecting between the paths of different lengths [see 0051-0053] by disclosing adjustable path length device that sets measurement range of interest and include other devices (e.g., polarization rotators, attenuators, lenses, mirrors, etc.) and an optional polarization controller that may be automatically or manually adjusted [see 0051-0053];
analyzing the interference signal [see claim 12, 0006, 0044 and figs 2, 18-22] by disclosing a detection system that detects the interference signal from which a ranging or longitudinal reflectance imaging of a sample positioned in the sample arm may be generated [see claim 12].
Swanson et al don’t disclose an interference peak is identified in the interference signal and performing image recognition on the interference signal to identify the interference peak.
Nonetheless, Wang et al disclose automatically selecting between the paths of different lengths until an interference peak is identified in the interference signal [see fig 5, 0054-0055] by disclosing Since the source has a very short coherence length, an interference peak appears at a location where a cross-polarization coupling happens when the moving mirror scans along equivalently the optical path of the fixed arm [see 0054] and performing image recognition on the interference signal to identify the interference peak [see 0062], the peak has been identified by image projection [see 0062].
Therefore, it is obvious to one skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed and would have been motivated to combine Swanson et al and Wang et al by performing image recognition on the interference signal to identify the interference peak; because each peak may be helpful to suppress the 2π phase jump and other influence of noise.
Conclusion

APPLICANT REBUTTAL: REMARKS
By this paper, Claims 1 and 17 have been amended, Claims 18 and 19 have been cancelled, and new Claims 20 and 21 have been added. Support for these amendments can be found at least in paragraphs [0064] and [0067] of the published application, as well as elsewhere throughout the specification and claims as originally filed. No new matter has been added by these amendments. Claims 1, 4-17, 20 and 21 are pending and presented for examination.
Discussion of Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C.
§
The Office Action rejected Claims 1 and 5-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as allegedly being indefinite.
By this paper, Claims 18 and 19 have been cancelled, rendering the rejection of these claims moot. Claims 1 and 17 have been amended to, among other amendments, remove the term "etc."
With respect to the feature of "the reflected first signal" in Claim 14, Applicant notes that this term has antecedent basis in at least line 5 of Claim 1. With respect to the feature "the analysed interference signal," Applicant notes that this term has antecedent basis at least in the recitation in line 15 of Claim 1 that the detector is for analyzing and detecting the interference signal. With respect to the feature of "the path elements" in Claim 17 as previously pending, Applicant notes that there was antecedent basis for the term earlier in Claim 17 as previously pending, and notes that Claim 17 has been further amended while providing antecedent basis for the recited features.
In view of these amendments, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). If further amendments are required, the Examiner is respectfully invited to contact the undersigned to discuss, in the interest of compact prosecution.
Discussion of Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C.
§
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9, and 12-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0376000 by Swanson et al. (hereinafter "Swanson") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0227399 by Hu et al. (hereinafter "Hu").
The Office Action states that Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Swanson in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2007/0237524 by Gerstel et al. (hereinafter "Gerstel"). Applicant understands that, as Claim 6 indirectly depends from Claim 1, the Office Action intended to reject Claim 6 as unpatentable over Swanson in view of Hu and Gerstel, and responds accordingly.
Similarly, the Office Action states that Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Swanson in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0366880 by Garcia et al. (hereinafter "Garcia"). Applicant understands that, as Claim 6 indirectly depends from Claim 1, the Office Action intended to reject Claim 10 as unpatentable over Swanson in view of Hu and Garcia, and responds accordingly.
Similarly, the Office Action states that Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Swanson in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0238798 by Isogai et al. (hereinafter "Isogai"). Applicant understands that, as Claim 11 depends from Claim 1, the Office Action intended to reject Claim 11 as unpatentable over Swanson in view of Hu and Isogai, and responds accordingly.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Swanson in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0116489 by Wang et al. (hereinafter "Wang").
For the reasons set forth below, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims as currently pending are patentable over the cited combinations.
Law of Obviousness
To support a finding of "obviousness, the Examiner must show that each and every limitation of the claim is described or suggested by the prior art or would have been obvious based on the knowledge of those of ordinary skill in the art." Ex parte Newcomb, Bd. of Pat. App. and Int. (March 31, 2008), citing In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see also CFMT, Inc. v. Yieldup Int'l Corp., 349 F.3d 1333, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ("[O]bviousness requires a suggestion of all the elements in a claim."). Moreover, "rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoted with approval in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1741 (2007)).
Discussion of Independent Claims
Although Applicant does not necessarily agree with the Examiner's rejection of Claim 1 as previously pending, Applicant has by this paper amended Claim 1 to emphasize certain distinctions over the cited art, solely in the interest of advancing prosecution. As amended, Claim
1 recites:
An apparatus suitable for optical coherence tomography (OCT) scanning of
a subject, the apparatus comprising:
at least one source for providing a first signal and a reference signal;
a photonics integrated circuit comprising:
(i) a first path for receiving a reflected first signal, reflected from the subject;
(ii) a second path for coupling the reflected first signal to the reference signal to provide an interference signal, and
(iii) a variable delay for varying an optical path length of one of the reference signal and the first signal to match the optical path length of the reference signal to an optical path length of the reflected first signal, wherein the variable delay comprises a series of binary switches and a series of path elements of different lengths of L wherein the series of path elements comprises lengths of L up to 2NL, where N is a positive integer;
and
a detector for analyzing and detecting the interference signal.
In making a ground of rejection of Claim 1, the Office Action states that it would have been obvious to combine Swanson and Hu by "using a series of binary switches path elements of L, 2L, etc. up to 2NL, where N is an integer and wherein the variable delay is a binary delay implementing a delay, in steps of L, of 0 to (2x2N-1):; a cascade of optical switches to increase the tuning range, also referred to as the dynamic range) of optical path length differences and increasing the optical path length differences can increase the resolution of the spectrometer [see 0043]." Office Action, at page 5. For the reasons set forth below, Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Swanson
discloses designs, systems and methods directed towards Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT), employing one or more photonic integrated circuits (PICs). See Swanson, at Abstract. In contrast,
Hu
discloses apparatus, systems and methods that are generally related to Fourier Transform Spectroscopy. See Hu, at para. [0006]. Hu makes no reference to OCT.
Combining apparatus, systems and methods for Fourier Transform Spectroscopy with designs, systems and methods for OCT would not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art of OCT or to a person having ordinary skill in the art of PICs.
The skilled person would not combine Swanson and Hu because while they are documents dealing with optical technology, the optical technologies involved in each document are very different with different end use applications.
Furthermore, even if the skilled person were to combine Swanson and Hu, they would still not arrive at Claim 1 as previously presented and as currently amended for the reasons set forth below.
Applicant notes, for purposes of this argument that while L, is simply referred to as L in the present patent application, it is referred to as L, in this response to avoid confusion with the L used in Hu, which is different and should not be conflated with the L described in the present application.
Amended claim 1 of the present application further clarifies that the first two (shortest) path elements are LP and 2LP. Hu discusses "variable" and "reference" optical path lengths which are relevant for the purposes of the first and second interference arms of Hu, discussed in turn below.
The first interference arm of Hu
To replicate the same behaviour of present claim 1 in Hu, i.e. to make the second "variable" path element twice the length of the first, requires 2(L + 20AL) = L + 22AL. Solving this returns AL = L/2.
Hu describes that AL/L is about 0.01 to 0.3. See Hu, at claim 8. As shown above, AL/L = 0.5 is required to achieve "variable" waveguide lengths equal to L, and 2Lp. Therefore, the range of values given by Hu for AL/L are
unsuitable
for OCT.
The second interference arm of Hu
Hu describes that the length of the mth "variable" waveguide in the second interference arm is L - 22-m1AL, where m=1, 2, ..., j/2. See Hu, at claims 5 and 7.
If one were to use only the second interference arm, which one should not, then it is only possible to avoid unphysical "variable" path lengths if it is configured to generate "variable" path lengths that increase with m. To do this, one must use a negative value of AL. Choosing AL =
-L/2 is necessary to ensure the second "variable" path element is twice the length of the first "variable" path element.
AL/L = -0.5 is also outside the range of values given by claim 8 of Hu for AL/L. Therefore, the range of values given by Hu for AL/L remain
unsuitable
for OCT.
Even if the first or second interference arms of Hu were in any way usable for OCT, which they are not, each interference arm can only include "variable" waveguides that are longer or shorter than the "reference" waveguides, as the length of each "variable" waveguide is dependent on the length of the corresponding "reference" waveguide. See Hu, at claims 3-7.
In the disclosed technology, the lengths of the "reference" waveguide and the "variable" waveguide are independent, and the tuneable switches can be set such that the default path is through the "reference" waveguide. See Publication, at para. [0070].
Thus, embodiments of the technology disclosed in the present patent application could be configured such that half of the "variable" waveguides are shorter than each "reference" waveguide and half of the "variable" waveguides are longer than each "reference" waveguide. This means the default path would be longer than the shortest total delay path and shorter than the longest total delay path. This means the average time to match the total delay path to the sample path length will be less than if the one of the interference arms from Hu were to be used, where the default path of an interference arm can only ever be the longest or the shortest total delay path.
More specifically, Hu would, on average, take twice as long to match the path lengths compared to embodiments of the technology disclosed in the present patent application, when the embodiments of the technology disclosed in the present patent application are configured such that the length of the default path sits exactly halfway between the shortest total delay path and the longest total delay path. Therefore, the embodiments of the technology disclosed in the present patent application are neither identically disclosed or obvious in light of Hu, whether or not this is taken in combination with Swanson.
Claim 1, as currently pending, is therefore non-obvious over a combination of Swanson and Hu. As Claim 17 recites certain features similar to those discussed above with respect to Claim
1, Applicant respectfully submits that independent Claim 17, as currently pending, is also non- obvious over a combination of Swanson and Hu.
Further Explanation of Unsuitability of Hu for OCT
In addition to the reasons above, Applicant respectfully notes that there are numerous additional reasons why the skilled person would not combine Swanson with Hu. These additional reasons include, wavelength incompatibility, signal destruction from  detectors, and the interference patterns of Hu being incompatible with OCT, each of which are discussed in term below.
Wavelength Incompatability
Hu provides an example operational wavelength of 1577.5 nm, for an on-chip spectrum analyzer covering the entire C and L bands (1530-1625 nm). See Hu, at para. [0077]. These wavelengths are unsuitable for OCT applications, example wavelengths for which are 840 nm (as mentioned in paragraph [0006] of the present patent application) or 1310 nm (as mentioned in paragraph [0045 of Swanson]). Therefore, Hu and Swanson cannot be combined to produce the disclosed technology embodied in the present patent application as Hu cannot be used for OCT.
Signal Destruction from Sensors
Even if the unsuitability of the Hu wavelengths could be overlooked, which they cannot, Hu's claim 1 (and so, by extension, claims 2-7), includes "a detector, in optical communication with the first interference arm and the second interference arm, to detect interference of the first portion of the incident light from the first interference arm and the second portion of the incident light from the second interference arm." The process of detection destroys the optical signal, so combining the disclosure of Hu with the variable delay of Swanson would render the invention disclosed in Swanson no longer able to perform OCT.
Generation of Interference Patterns
Even one were to ignore the presence of the detectors in Hu, which one cannot, the invention disclosed in Hu first splits the incident light into a first portion and a second portion, before passing the first portion through a first interference arm and the second portion through a
second interference arm. The first interference arm and the second interference arm are of different configurations such that there is an optical path length difference between the two. Finally, the first interference arm and the second interference arm are coupled to a beam combiner. See Hu, at claims 1-7, Abstract, and paras. [0008], [0023], 0029], and [0087]-[0094]. This generates interference patterns by design See Hu, at Abstract and para. [0023].
In OCT, interference patterns generated by the optical setup itself, rather than the sample, are a source of optical noise and are therefore undesirable. Optical noise obscures the interference patterns generated using light from the subject and so degrades the quality of the image. The use of the splitter in Hu, combined with changes in the optical path length difference between the two interference arms, means such degradation would be catastrophic and unavoidable, rendering the system unable to perform OCT.
Even if one were to ignore the issue of optical noise in Hu, which one cannot, the Office Action notes that Hu discloses "a cascade of optical switches to increase the tuning range (also referred to as the dynamic range) of optical path length differences and increasing the optical path length differences can increase the resolution of the spectrometer [see 0043]". Paragraph [0053] of Hu, and in particular equation (3), supports the Office Action's point that the system disclosed in Hu has a spectral resolution that can be improved by increasing the number of optical switches. Hu also discloses that the trade-off between spectral resolution, device footprint, and power consumption is a challenge and that lower spectral resolutions are undesirable (see para. [0005]), and that their invention offers superior spectral resolution with a compact footprint (see paras. [0026], [0051]). Therefore, the optimal implementation of Hu is the one that provides the highest spectral resolution. The implementation that provides the highest spectral resolution is the one that has the greatest number of optical switches.
However, embodiments of the disclosed technology require the optical path length of the reference signal and the optical path length of the reflected first signal to be "matched." See Publication, at Abstract, claim 1, claim 17, and paras. [0005], [0011], [0019], [0048], [0065]. The present specification also describes that matching the reference arm length to the sample path length is a problem (see para. [0007]), that the signals will not interfere as required unless the delay of the reference signal path is matched to the target signal path to within one coherence length (see para. [0044]), and that matching these paths will increase the clarity of resultant images (see para.
[0045]). The present specification states that peak interference occurs when the two path lengths match ([0044]). Therefore, the skilled person reading the present patent application would understand to try to create the closest match between the two path lengths. This is contrary to the disclosure of Hu, as discussed below.
Increasing the number of optical switches increases the minimum length of the reference signal path, as each optical switch has to be of finite length. This means that maximising the number of optical switches to provide the optimal implementation described in Hu will eventually increase the minimum length of the reference signal path of the present patent application to the point where it is greater than the length of the target signal path. This difference will be greater than one coherence length, as maximising the spectral resolution requires the number of optical switches to be increased indefinitely (see equation (3) in [0053] of Hu). Therefore, the optimal implementation of Hu and the teaching of the present patent application are mutually incompatible, and so the claimed invention in the present patent application is neither identically disclosed or obvious in light of Hu, even in combination with Swanson.
Even if the optimal implementation of Hu and the teachings of the present patent application were not mutually incompatible, which they are, paragraph [0047] of Hu states, that the variation in optical path lengths "can be, for example, about 0.5 mm to about 5 mm (e.g., about 0.5 mm, about 1.0 mm, about 1.5 mm, about 2.0 mm, about 2.5 mm, about 3.0 mm, about 3.5 mm, about 4.0 mm, about 4.5 mm, or about 5.0 mm, including any values and Sub ranges in between)." In contrast, para. [0062] of the present application states that "The fine/tuning delay needs to achieve variation in path length of the order of lOs of mm, e.g. up to 80 mm, although a lower range is still very useful (e.g. 10-20 mm) depending on the application." Therefore, Hu does not provide sufficient variation in the desired optical path length to be suitable for OCT.
Even if Hu did provide sufficient variation in the desired optical path length, which it does not, and even if one were to ignore the issue of optical noise in Hu, which one cannot, the footprint of the invention described in Hu is at least 33% bigger than that of the present patent application when applied to the example given in [0067] of the present patent application. See Hu, at Abstract, claims 2-7, and paras. [0008], [0023], [0029], [0037], and [0087]-[0094]. This is because the relationships between different delay options in each of the interference arms of Hu create two incomplete sets of path lengths. A smaller footprint is important for compact and portable OCT as
this reduces the overall size of the chip, as described in paragraphs [0010] and [0074] of the published application.
In contrast, in claim 1 of the present patentapplication, the length of the Nth "variable" waveguide is independent of the length of any of the "reference" waveguides. The length of the Nth "variable" waveguide in claim 1 of the present patent application is 2NLp. As noted previously, L, is simply referred to as L in the present patent application, however we refer to it as L, here to avoid confusion with the L used in Hu, which is different and should not be conflated with our L. For clarity, Applicant also notes that Claim 1 of the present patent application defines N as an integer (i.e., the first "variable" waveguide can correspond to N=0), while paragraph [0008] of Hu defines n = 1, 2, ... (i.e. the first "variable" waveguide corresponds to n=1).
In the present patent application, the first three "variable" path elements are L, (for N=0), 2L, (for N=1), and 4L, (for N=2). By switching through the first and third "variable" path element, but not the second, this allows for a total delay path of 5L, (see claim 1 and [0067] of the published application).
L + 24(L/2) = L + 23L = 9L. This can be compared to the length ofthe first "variable" path element, L + 20AL = L + L/2 = 3L/2, and the length of the second "variable" path element, L + 22AL = L + 4L/2 = 3L. Combining the first and third "variable" path elements creates a total delay path of 21L/2, which is 7x the length of the first "variable" path element, as opposed to 5x the length of the first "variable" path element in the present patent application.
This means that, for Hu to achieve a total delay path that is 5x the length of the first "variable" path element, the second interference arm must also be utilized. The simplest method would be to set the first "variable" path element in the second interference arm as equalling 5x the length of the first "variable" path element in the first interference arm. This means Hu would require four "variable" path elements to achieve the same total delay path that is achieved with three "variable" path elements in the present patent application, meaning the footprint of Hu is at
least 33% bigger than the footprint of the invention disclosed in the present patent application, when applied to the example given in [0067] of the present patent application.
Applicant notes that 33% is the lower bound for the increase in footprint because the splitter in Hu must also be of finite size. This problem is also not unique to the example given in [0067] of the present patent application. For example, it can be seen from the calculations above that the same issue arises when combining the second and third "variable" path elements to create a total delay path that is 6x the length of the first "variable" path element.
One could re-run the above calculations, applied instead to the second interference arm of Hu. However, the second interference arm comprises a sequence of decreasing "variable" path lengths, whereas the disclosed technology describesa sequence of increasing "variable" path lengths, meaning the two are not comparable.
Even one were to ignore this, which one should not, and were to attempt to replicate the total delay paths from [0067] "in reverse", the footprint still increases by at least 33%. By "in reverse", we mean that we attempt to engineer the second interference arm such that the second "variable" path length is 2x the length of the third "variable" path length and the first "variable" path length is 4x the length of the third "variable" path length. In this case, it is required that AL = L/56 in order for the second "variable" path length to be equal to 2x the length of the third "variable" path length. However, the first "variable" path length will then be 2.25x the length of the third "variable" path length meaning, once again, the minimum number of "variable" path lengths needed to recreate the example given in [0067] of the present patent application is four, provided the first interference arm in Hu is also utilised.
For each additional "variable" path length, an additional optical switch is required (see, for example, claim 5 of Hu). For each additional optical switch, there is an additional electronic control feedback block (see [0051]-[0060], [0070] and figure 3c of the present patent application). This means that the footprint of the control electronics must also increase by at least 33% in the case of Hu and the total OCT system will be materially larger. Therefore, the invention disclosed in Hu has a footprint that is unsuitable for compact and portable OCT. In addition, the the pending claims are neither identically disclosed or obvious in light of Hu, even in combination with Swanson.
Even if one were to ignore the issues associated with having a 33% greater footprint, which one should not, the example given in [0064] of the present patent application states that "the lower rail adds no significant delay to the path length comprised of non-delay path elements". In other
words, the length of the "reference" waveguide, L- 0. Applying this to the second interference arm of Hu for AL > 0 (as required by [0092] of Hu) results in the lengths of all the "variable" waveguides being less than 0. This is unphysical and, combined with the first interference arm's inability to generate a total delay path of 5x or 6x the length of the first "variable" path element, means that the invention disclosed in Hu cannot reproduce the example given in [0064] of the present patent application. Therefore, the pending claims are neither identically disclosed or obvious in light of Hu, even in combination with Swanson.
Even if one were to attempt to reduce the footprint of Hu by only implementing the first interference arm, which one should not, this would prevent path matching for certain values of the target signal path length. As outlined above, using only the first interference arm would prohibit certain total delay paths from being implemented, including those that are 5x and 6x the length of the first "variable" path element.
As mentioned above, if one were to abandon any attempt to implement total delay paths that are 5x or 6x the length of the first "variable" path element, which one should not, Hu states in claim 8 that AL/L is about 0.01 to 0.3. As shown above, AL/L = 0.5 is required to achieve "variable" waveguide lengths equal to L, and 2Lp. Therefore, the range of values given by Hu for AL/L are unsuitable for OCT.
As mentioned above, if one were to use only the second interference arm, which one should not, then it is only possible to avoid unphysical "variable" path lengths if it is configured to generate "variable" path lengths that increase with m. To do this, one must use a negative value of AL. Choosing AL = -L/2 is necessary to ensure the second "variable" path element is twice the length of the first "variable" path element. However, this then generates the same sequence of "variable" path lengths as in the first interference arm, meaning a total delay path that is 5x and 6x the length of the first "variable" path element is once again prohibited.
As mentioned above, AL/L = -0.5 is also outside the range of values given by claim 8 of Hu for AL/L. Therefore, even if attempts to implement total delay paths of 5x or 6x the first "variable" path element were once again abandoned, which they should not be, the range of values given by Hu for AL/L remain unsuitable for OCT.
As noted in [0007] of the present patent application, "A problem with existing OCT apparatus is matching the reference path length to the sample path length.". Therefore, the above demonstrates that only implementing one of the interference arms renders the invention disclosed
in Hu unable to solve this problem, as there are values of the sample path length that cannot be matched, whether or not the range of values given by Hu for AL/L are adhered to. Furthermore, and in addition to the reasons already given, only implementing one of the interference arms of Hu actively makes it unsuitable for OCT. The sample path lengths are specific and unique for each individual and can differ widely (see [0008], [0042] and [0049] of the present patent application), meaning some individuals may be unable to be scanned if not all sample path lengths can be matched.
. In the previous example with three "variable" path lengths, thismeans j/2 = 3, returning AL = L/56, as noted above. As j/2 increases, AL - 0 and so the length of the mth "variable" waveguide, L - 22m-1AL - L for all but the shortest few "variable" waveguides. For example, if j/2 = 5, the "variable" waveguides have lengths 3L/7, 6L/7, 27L/28, 111L/112, and 447L/448, where the lengths of the longest two "variable" waveguides are both >99% of the length of the "reference" waveguide. The shortest "variable" waveguide is always 3L/7, so this caps the longest "variable" waveguide at 2.33x the length of the shortest "variable" waveguide.
Therefore, it is not possible to generate a total delay path that is 5x or 6x the length of the shortest "variable" delay path in any efficient manner. This renders the second interference arm from Hu unsuitable for OCT, in addition to all of the reasons previously given.
There is no evidence that it is possible to generate a total delay path that is 5x or 6x the length of the shortest "variable" delay path even in an inefficient manner. However, if one were to assume that some inefficient configuration does exist, which one should not, it would require additional "variable" waveguides of lengths that are substantially different to one another (i.e. not all > 0.99L). This can only be achieved by sacrificing the requirement that the second shortest
"variable" waveguide is twice the length of the shortest "variable" waveguide, so as to reduce the length of the shortest "variable" waveguide and/or reduce the step size in length between each "variable" waveguide. If one were to do this, it would increase the number of switches and "variable" waveguide/"reference" waveguide pairs, resulting in a longer delay line overall. This would introduce unwanted dispersion, elongate the settling time when changing paths, and induce instability on the chip (see [0009] and [0074] of the present patent application). Therefore, even an inefficient configuration of the second interference arm in Hu, which we do not concede even exists, would be wholly unsuitable for OCT, both PIC-based and in general.
For at least the above reasons, Applicant respectfully submits that there would be no reason to combine the teachings of Swanson with those of Hu, and that independent Claims 1 and 17, as currently amended, are patentable over the cited combination. As the remaining claims depend from or otherwise incorporate the features of a patentable independent claim, Applicant respectfully submits that they are also patentable over the cited art at least by virtue of their dependency from a patentable independent claim, in addition to reciting further patentable distinction.  Furthermore, Applicant does not necessarily agree with the Examiner's characterization of the cited art with respect to the features of these dependent claims.
In view  of the above amendments and remarks, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejection of the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No Disclaimers or Disavowals
Although the present communication may include alterations to the application or claims, or characterizations of claim scope or referenced art, Applicant is not conceding in this application that previously pending claims are not patentable over the cited references. Rather, any alterations or characterizations are being made to facilitate expeditious prosecution of this application. Applicant reserves the right to pursue at a later date any previously pending or other broader or narrower claims that capture any subject matter supported by the present disclosure, including subject matter found to be specifically disclaimed herein or by any prior prosecution. Accordingly, reviewers of this or any parent, child or related prosecution history shall not reasonably infer that Applicant has made any disclaimers or disavowals of any subject matter supported by the present application.
Conclusion

NEXT OFFICE 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 .
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: No prior arts of record alone or in combination discloses the following:
“adjusting a delay of one of the reference signal and the first signal by a variable delay to match an optical path length of the reference signal to an optical path length of the reflected first signal, wherein the step of adjusting comprises selecting between paths of different lengths, wherein the variable delay comprises a series of binary switches and a series of different selectable path lengths, wherein the series of path elements comprise lengths of L, 2L, etc. up to 2NL, where N is a positive integer”
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee.  Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”

CITED REFERENCE SUMMARIES: Ref US20170238798A1: Claims:
An optical coherence tomography device comprising: an OCT optical system configured to irradiate a tissue of a subject's eye with measurement light from a light source, the OCT optical system including a detector configured to detect interference between reference light and the measurement light reflected from the tissue and a processor configured to: a generation process of acquiring A-scan data based on a signal output from the detector in a cycle of 300 kilohertz or more and generating three-dimensional OCT data based on the acquired A-scan data; and an analysis process on each piece of the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process, so as to output a real-time analysis result of the three-dimensional OCT data which is generated.
an OCT optical system configured to irradiate a tissue of a subject's eye with measurement light from a light source, the OCT optical system including a detector configured to detect interference between reference light and the measurement light reflected from the tissue and
a processor configured to:
a generation process of acquiring A-scan data based on a signal output from the detector in a cycle of 300 kilohertz or more and generating three-dimensional OCT data based on the acquired A-scan data; and
an analysis process on each piece of the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process, so as to output a real-time analysis result of the three-dimensional OCT data which is generated.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1 , wherein the processor displays a graphics in which the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process is visualized on a monitor in real time, and outputs to the monitor the analysis result corresponding to the graphics displayed on the monitor to display the analysis result on the monitor.
wherein the processor
displays a graphics in which the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process is visualized on a monitor in real time, and
outputs to the monitor the analysis result corresponding to the graphics displayed on the monitor to display the analysis result on the monitor.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1 , wherein the processor generates pieces of time-series three-dimensional OCT data through the generation process, and obtains the analysis result by processing at least two pieces of three-dimensional OCT data among the pieces of time-series three-dimensional OCT data in the analysis process.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 3 , wherein the processor generates three-dimensional motion contrast data regarding the subject's eye through the analysis process, and displays a moving image formed of a three-dimensional motion contrast image which is a graphics obtained by visualizing the three-dimensional motion contrast data, on the monitor as the analysis result.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 3 , wherein the processor generates three-dimensional motion contrast data through the analysis process, and obtains information regarding pulsation of a blood flow in the subject's eye as the analysis result based on the three-dimensional motion contrast data.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 5 , wherein the processor acquires the information regarding pulsation as the analysis result of the analysis process based on a blood flow direction based on the three-dimensional motion contrast data, and at least the two pieces of three-dimensional OCT data.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 6 , wherein at least the two pieces of three-dimensional OCT data include first three-dimensional OCT data, second three-dimensional OCT data having a time interval with the first three-dimensional OCT data as a first time interval, and third three-dimensional OCT data having a time interval with the first three-dimensional OCT data as a second time interval, and the processor simultaneously obtains pieces of the information regarding pulsation at a plurality of locations in which diameters of blood vessels are different from each other based on a Doppler phase shift between the first three-dimensional OCT data and the second three-dimensional OCT data and a Doppler phase shift between the first three-dimensional OCT data and the third three-dimensional OCT data by performing the analysis process.
at least the two pieces of three-dimensional OCT data include first three-dimensional OCT data, second three-dimensional OCT data having a time interval with the first three-dimensional OCT data as a first time interval, and third three-dimensional OCT data having a time interval with the first three-dimensional OCT data as a second time interval, and
the processor simultaneously obtains pieces of the information regarding pulsation at a plurality of locations in which diameters of blood vessels are different from each other based on a Doppler phase shift between the first three-dimensional OCT data and the second three-dimensional OCT data and a Doppler phase shift between the first three-dimensional OCT data and the third three-dimensional OCT data by performing the analysis process.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1 , wherein the processor analyzes a coagulation spot formed on the subject's eye by photocoagulation laser light based on the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process by performing the analysis process, and outputs at least one of information regarding a size of the coagulation spot and information regarding a position of the coagulation spot in the subject's eye as the analysis result.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1 , wherein the processor generates the three-dimensional OCT data including the fundus of the subject's eye in a data acquisition range through the generation process, analyzes a separation location of layers forming the fundus based on the three-dimensional OCT data generated in the analysis process, and outputs separation location information which is information indicating at least one of the presence or absence of a separation location of layers and a position of the separation location as the analysis result.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 2 , wherein the processor forms a three-dimensional blood vessel image of the subject's eye through the analysis process, and displays the formed three-dimensional blood vessel image on the monitor in an overlapping manner with a three-dimensional image of the subject's eye obtained by visualizing the three-dimensional OCT data.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1 , wherein the processor generates the three-dimensional OCT data including the subject's eye and an instrument used for diagnosis, treatment, or surgery of the subject's eye in a data acquisition range through the generation process, analyzes a gap between a tissue of the subject's eye and the instrument in a depth direction, based on the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the analysis process, and outputs information regarding the gap as the analysis result.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1 , wherein the processor analyzes a thickness of a tissue of the subject's eye by performing the analysis process on the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process, and outputs information regarding the thickness as the analysis result.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1 , further comprising: an input interface configured to receive an instruction from an examiner, wherein the processor displays a graphics obtained by visualizing the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process, on the monitor in real time, receives a region in which the analysis process is performed on the graphics based on a signal from the input interface, and displays a result of an analysis process on the region on the monitor.
an input interface configured to receive an instruction from an examiner,
wherein the processor displays a graphics obtained by visualizing the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process, on the monitor in real time, receives a region in which the analysis process is performed on the graphics based on a signal from the input interface, and displays a result of an analysis process on the region on the monitor.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 1 , wherein the processor obtains an analysis result of a three-dimensional region included in an acquisition range of three-dimensional OCT data through the analysis process.
An optical coherence tomography device comprising: an OCT optical system configured to irradiate a tissue of the subject's eye with measurement light from a light source, the OCT optical system including a detector configured to detect interference between reference light and the measurement light reflected from the tissue; and a processor configured to: a generation process of acquiring A-scan data based on a signal output from the detector in a cycle of 300 kilohertz or more and generating three-dimensional OCT data based on the acquired A-scan data; and a display control process of generating a two-dimensional image indicating a section in an acquisition range of the three-dimensional OCT data as a graphics in which the three-dimensional OCT data is visualized based on each piece of the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process, and updating and displaying the generated two-dimensional image on a monitor.
an OCT optical system configured to irradiate a tissue of the subject's eye with measurement light from a light source, the OCT optical system including a detector configured to detect interference between reference light and the measurement light reflected from the tissue; and
a display control process of generating a two-dimensional image indicating a section in an acquisition range of the three-dimensional OCT data as a graphics in which the three-dimensional OCT data is visualized based on each piece of the three-dimensional OCT data generated through the generation process, and updating and displaying the generated two-dimensional image on a monitor.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 15 , further comprising: an input interface configured to receive an instruction from an examiner, wherein the processor performs a selection process of selecting a position of the section related to the two-dimensional image in the acquisition range of the three-dimensional OCT data based on a signal from the input interface, and displays a two-dimensional image of a selected section on the monitor.
wherein the processor performs a selection process of selecting a position of the section related to the two-dimensional image in the acquisition range of the three-dimensional OCT data based on a signal from the input interface, and displays a two-dimensional image of a selected section on the monitor.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 16 , wherein the processor: generates a front image as the two-dimensional image based on some data of the three-dimensional OCT data in a depth direction in the display control process; and further selects the section related to the front image in an acquisition range of the three-dimensional OCT data in the depth direction based on a signal from the input interface through the selection process.
wherein the processor:
generates a front image as the two-dimensional image based on some data of the three-dimensional OCT data in a depth direction in the display control process; and
further selects the section related to the front image in an acquisition range of the three-dimensional OCT data in the depth direction based on a signal from the input interface through the selection process.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 17 , wherein the processor: selects any one of a plurality of layers forming the fundus as a position in the depth direction in the selection process; and further generates the front image indicating a front view of a layer selected in the selection process, through the display control process, so as to display the front image on the monitor.
selects any one of a plurality of layers forming the fundus as a position in the depth direction in the selection process; and
further generates the front image indicating a front view of a layer selected in the selection process, through the display control process, so as to display the front image on the monitor.
The optical coherence tomography device according to claim 17 , wherein the processor selects any coordinate of the three-dimensional OCT data in the depth direction as a position in the depth direction through the selection process, and displays the front image indicating a horizontal plane at the selected coordinate in the depth direction on the monitor through the display control process.
An optical coherence tomography device comprising: an OCT optical system configured to irradiate a tissue of the subject's eye with measurement light from a light source, the OCT optical system including a detector configured to detect interference between reference light and the measurement light reflected from the tissue; a scanning unit that includes an optical scanner for main scanning that includes one or a plurality of galvanomirrors which scan the subject's eye with the measurement light in a predetermined main scanning direction by performing reciprocation driving formed of forward moving and backward moving, and an optical scanner for sub-scanning that is different from the optical scanner for main scanning in terms of a scanning direction, and scans the subject's eye with the measurement light in a two-dimensional manner based on operations of the optical scanner for main scanning and the optical scanner for sub-scanning; and a processor configured to: acquire A-scan data based on a signal output from the detector in a cycle of 300 kilohertz or more; and perform scanning with measurement light continuously twice or more in the main scanning direction by repeatedly reciprocating the galvanomirror at a constant swing angle, and controls at least the galvanomirror so that a time difference between start timings of respective scanning operations is set to a value which is equal to or less than 5 milliseconds.
an OCT optical system configured to irradiate a tissue of the subject's eye with measurement light from a light source, the OCT optical system including a detector configured to detect interference between reference light and the measurement light reflected from the tissue;
a scanning unit that includes an optical scanner for main scanning that includes one or a plurality of galvanomirrors which scan the subject's eye with the measurement light in a predetermined main scanning direction by performing reciprocation driving formed of forward moving and backward moving, and an optical scanner for sub-scanning that is different from the optical scanner for main scanning in terms of a scanning direction, and scans the subject's eye with the measurement light in a two-dimensional manner based on operations of the optical scanner for main scanning and the optical scanner for sub-scanning; and
acquire A-scan data based on a signal output from the detector in a cycle of 300 kilohertz or more; and
perform scanning with measurement light continuously twice or more in the main scanning direction by repeatedly reciprocating the galvanomirror at a constant swing angle, and controls at least the galvanomirror so that a time difference between start timings of respective scanning operations is set to a value which is equal to or less than 5 milliseconds.
Ref US20200116489A1: [content unavailable]
Ref US20140376000A1: Claims:
An optical system for optical coherence tomography comprising: an interferometer that divides a tunable optical signal between a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal, said interferometer including a dual-polarization, dual-balanced, in-phase and quadrature (I/Q) detection outputs and integrated photodetectors; and a tunable optical source that generates the tunable optical signal; wherein the interferometer, and the tunable optical source are integrated onto a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) and said interference signal is used to determine information about a longitudinal reflectivity profile of optical properties of a sample positioned in the sample path.
an interferometer that divides a tunable optical signal between a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal, said interferometer including a dual-polarization, dual-balanced, in-phase and quadrature (I/Q) detection outputs and integrated photodetectors; and
a tunable optical source that generates the tunable optical signal;
wherein the interferometer, and the tunable optical source are integrated onto a photonic integrated circuit (PIC) and said interference signal is used to determine information about a longitudinal reflectivity profile of optical properties of a sample positioned in the sample path.
The optical system of claim 1 further comprising a k-clock module for generating a k-clock signal for triggering the detector system wherein said k-clock module is integrated onto the single PIC.
The optical system of claim 1 wherein said tunable optical source system includes one or more optical frequency modulators.
The optical system of claim 1 wherein said tunable optical source includes one or more tunable optical filters.
The optical system of claim 1 further comprising one or more surface grating couplers integrated onto the PIC for coupling light between the PIC and one or more optical fibers.
The optical system of claim 1 further comprising one or more facet couplers integrated onto the PIC for coupling light between the PIC and one or more optical fibers.
The optical system of claim 1 further comprising a non-silicon optical gain element in optical communication with the PIC, wherein the PIC is a silicon photonic PIC.
The optical system of claim 1 wherein the PIC includes more than one optical port and each one of said ports is coupled to an optical fiber, and each one of said optical fibers included in a single block affixed to the PIC.
The optical system of claim 1 further comprising a carrier substrate onto which is mounted the PIC and one or more additional electrical chips.
The optical system of claim 1 further comprising an optical gain element including multiple optical waveguides providing gain peak at different locations integrated onto the PIC.
The optical system of claim 1 further comprising a modulator integrated onto the PIC, said modulator positioned in the optical path of the tunable optical signal.
An electro-optical system comprising: one or more couplers for optically coupling light comprising a tunable optical signal into one or more of the photonic integrated circuits, an interferometer that divides the tunable optical signal between a reference path and a sample path and combines optical signals returning from the reference path and the sample path to generate an interference signal; and a detection system that detects the interference signal from which a ranging or longitudinal reflectance imaging of a sample positioned in the sample arm may be generated; wherein the interferometer, couplers and detection system are all integrated onto one or more closely coupled photonic integrated circuits (PICs) commonly packaged or positioned on a common substrate.
one or more couplers for optically coupling light comprising a tunable optical signal
[Truncated to input limit]