DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgement is made to Applicant’s claim to priority to U.S. Provisional App. No. 62/853,226 filed May 28, 2019.
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on 02/06/2026. Claims 1, 20, 25, and 30 have been amended. Claims 7, 21-24, 26-29, 31-34, and 39 were previously canceled. Claims 1-6, 8-20, 25, 30, and 35-38 are presently pending in this application.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann (US 20140275891) in view of Kurtz (US 20070263226 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Muehlemann teaches diffuse optical tomography (DOT) device (Paragraph [0063]; systems for performing diffuse optical tomography (DOT) measurements of a subject, Figs. 1 and 2 #100 and 200), comprising:
an array of integrated circuit nodes (Paragraph [0158]; circuitry modules 208a-208c, Fig. 10; Paragraph [0120]; circuitry modules 208a-208c may be integrated circuit packages; The set of circuitry modules 208a-c are considered to be an array of integrated circuit nodes as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation; Fig. 10 shows there are a plurality of ordered circuit module which is considered to be an array as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation), wherein at least one node of the integrated circuit nodes is configured to control a plurality of optical sources (Paragraph [0120]-[0123]; the optical sensor 200 may also include control circuitry (or control electronics) for controlling operation of the optical sources 202 and/or optical detectors 204; circuitry modules 208a-c Figs. 2A and 10) so as to generate a plurality of first near infrared (NIR) photons to impact at least one anatomical structure (Paragraph [0095]; an optical signal (e.g., a light ray; Paragraph [0120]-[0121]; the drive circuitry may control the emission intensity and power of the optical sources; application specific integrated circuit may provide one or more analog and/or digital functions) 304a-304c may be directed into the subject from an optical source 202, Fig 3A; provide information about the tissue of a subject; subject's head, Fig. 3A #110; Paragraph [0109]; optical sources 202 of the optical sensor 200 may emit light within the NIR (near infrared) spectrum… between approximately 600 nm and approximately 1,000 nm; Paragraph [0111]; The optical detectors may detect the wavelengths emitted by the optical sources); and
a plurality of optical detectors (Paragraph [0092]; plurality of optical detectors, Figs. 2A and 10 #204) which are controlled by the at least one node (Paragraphs [0120]-[0121]; The analog receive circuitry may be configured to receive an analog signal from one or more (e.g., all) optical detectors of the optical sensor) or at least one further node of the integrated circuit nodes (Paragraph [0160]; The circuitry modules 208a-208c may also be disposed on and interconnected by flexible circuitry board strips as shown, and may be coupled to the optical sources and/or optical detectors in this manner, Fig. 10), wherein each of the optical detectors is configured to detect a plurality of second NIR photons from the at least one anatomical structure based on the first NIR photons (Paragraphs [0111], [0243], and [0244]; The optical detectors may detect the wavelengths emitted by the optical sources; absorption or scattering within a subject; Paragraph [0095]; of the optical signals may follow an arc before exiting the head 110 and being detected by one or more optical detectors of the optical sensor; Paragraphs [0243]-[0244]; provide information about absorption or scattering within a subject; The optical signals may pass through the subject and be detected by the optical detectors upon exit from the subject).
Muehlemann does not explicitly teach the plurality of second NIR photons are backscattered.
Kurtz, however, teaches a diffuse optical tomography (DOT) device (Paragraph [0071]; a diagnostic imaging device for examining dermal tissues; Paragraph [0100]; the systems of FIGS. 5, 6, and 7 of this application might be extended to provide a diffuse optical tomography imaging modality) wherein each of the optical detectors (Paragraph [0072]; Detector 280 is nominally an area sensor device with a row and column structure) is configured to detect a plurality of second NIR photons backscattered (Paragraph [0072]; Some portion of this incident light will be reflected or backscattered from the various tissue components… and can be imaged by objective lens 270 onto detector 280) from the at least one anatomical structure based on the first NIR photons (Paragraph [0072]; Incident light provided by the illumination system 205 will penetrate the tissue 290. Some portion of this incident light will be reflected or backscattered from the various tissue components; Paragraph [0075]; provide illumination light with an increasing nominal wavelength… ~530 nm, then ~630 nm, and ~830 nm light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Muehlemann such that the detectors are configured to detect a plurality of second NIR photons backscattered from the anatomical structure as taught by Kurtz because it is a known method of performing diffuse optical tomography for detecting tumors in the breast and non-invasively determining hemoglobin concentration, hemoglobin oxygen saturation, cytochromes, lipids and water in vivo (Paragraph [0099]), and further the distance or spatial information is determined from the time delay of reflected echoes, allowing imaging in-depth profiles at discrete points along the surface (Paragraph [0012]).
Regarding claim 3, together Muehlemann and Kurtz teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Muehlemann further teaches the DOT device is mounted in a headgear (Paragraphs [0074], [0075], [0093]-[0095], and [0277]; The support #102 may hold or otherwise support the sensor 104 against the subject's head, and may have any suitable construction for doing so, Fig. 1, 3, and 20) configured to be placed on a head of at least one person (Paragraphs [0091]-[0095]; optical sensor #200 is placed the head #110 of a patient, Fig. 3A).
Regarding claim 35, together Muehlemann and Kurtz teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Muehlemann further teaches the second NIR photons are generated as a result of an absorption by the anatomical structure (Paragraph [0065]; hemoglobin levels are determined using absorption of light at wavelengths in the 600 to 900 nm range; In a particular tissue, absorption may be estimated from detected light intensity at two or more distances from a light source; Paragraph [0068]; the system 100 may be used to provide and/or analyze information relating to absorption (within a given spectral range) of endogenous biological chromophores).
Claims 2 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Siegel (US 20160263395).
Regarding claim 2, together Muehlemann and Kurtz teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
It is not explicitly clear if Muehlemann teaches the integrated circuit nodes are disposed on a flexible substrate.
Siegel, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a light control device (Paragraph [0006]) comprising an array of integrated circuit nodes (Paragraph [0038]; circuits 16, Figs. 1 and 2), wherein at least one node of the integrated circuit nodes is configured to control a plurality of optical sources (Paragraph [0038]; the circuit 16 is configured to provide power to the light source 14) so as to generate a plurality of first photons to impact at least one anatomical structure (Paragraph [0044]; light emitted from the light source 14 will be directed into the body of the user), wherein the integrated circuit nodes are disposed on a flexible substrate (Paragraph [0034]; The device body 12 may be formed… from polyimide; Paragraph [0035]; individual emitters within an array can be electrically connected to facilitate electrical control of the ensemble as well as integration into flexible/stretchable electronic circuits; Figs. 1-3 show the control circuits 16 are disposed on the body 12 of the device which is made of material which may include polyimide; paragraph [0042]; flexible electronic circuits are by definition compatible with some degree of mechanical deformation. Commonly, flexible circuits are formed by mounting electronic components (e.g. the light source 14 and/or the circuit 16) on flexible substrates).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz such that the integrated circuit nodes are disposed on the flexible substrate as taught by Siegel because it would have allowed integration of the device into various garments, sleeves, braces, wraps, hats, and the like, thereby improving the delivery the of light to the area of interest (Siegel, Paragraph [0042]).
Regarding claim 19, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, and Siegel teach all of the limitations of claim 2 as noted above.
Muehlemann discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose the flexible substrate is a flexible polyimide substrate.
Siegel further teaches the flexible substrate is a flexible polyimide substrate (Paragraph [0034]; Exemplary polymer materials include, without limitations, polyimide; Paragraph [0042]; the illumination system 20 may incorporate flex or stretchable electronic circuit technology).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Siegel such that the flexible substrate is a flexible polyimide substrate as taught by Siegel because the flexibility of these circuits and the illumination system 20 can be enhanced both by the selection of substrate materials and the design and selection of embedded components, electrical interconnects and mechanical structures forming the illumination system, thereby allowing the integration of the device into various garments, sleeves, braces, wraps, hats, and the like (Siegel, Paragraph [0042]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sutin (US 20180070830).
Regarding claim 4, together Muehlemann and Kurtz teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Muehlemann does not teach the optical detectors are an array of single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) detectors.
Sutin, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a diffuse optical tomography (DOT) device (Paragraph [0114]) comprising optical detectors, wherein the optical detectors are an array (Paragraph [0089]; plurality of detectors 14-1 to 14-n, Fig. 1) of single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) detectors (Paragraph [0087]; The TR-DCS detector 14, 114 can be a single-photon avalanche photodiode detector).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the detectors of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz to be an array of SPAD detectors as it would have had the predictable result of detecting single photons from the patient’s tissue and enabled separating the photons by their time of flight, thereby allowing discrimination of the contribution of dynamic flow signals from different tissues and thus allowed independent determination of metabolic values for the different tissues (Sutin, Paragraph [0010] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 5, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, and Sutin teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as noted above.
Muehlemann discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose the SPAD detectors are configured to be active only during a tunable time window.
Sutin further teach the SPAD detectors are configured to be active only during a tunable time window (Sutin, Paragraphs [0131]; this disclosure provides a method 700 of making a time-gated or time-tagged DCS measurement of a target medium; Paragraph [0139]; can utilize gated detection that involves deactivating a gated detector during an initial time period and activating the gated detector during a subsequent time period; Paragraph [0173]; Each gate was 48 ps and they were each shifted 12 ps relative to the previous gate; Time gates can be shifted which is considered to read on the claimed limitation of a tunable time window as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Sutin such that the SPAD detectors are configured to be active only during a tunable time window as taught by Sutin because it would have reduced or eliminated saturation that can result from an initial burst of light arriving at the gated detector (Sutin, Paragraph [0139]) and further allow selectively detecting photons based on their times of flight, thereby allowing discrimination of the contribution of dynamic flow signals from different tissues and thus allowed independent determination of metabolic values for the different tissues (Sutin, Paragraph [0010] and [0074]).
Regarding claim 6, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, and Sutin teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as noted above.
Muehlemann and Sutin further teach the SPAD detectors are configured to measure an arrival time of the second photons (Muehlemann, Paragraph [0129]; capture digital information from an external device and synchronize in time (to the time resolution of a frame) the auxiliary data input with the data from the optical sensor #200; Sutin, Paragraph [0074]; Other aspects may use a single timestamp to record both the time of flight and arrival time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the SPAD detectors of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Sutin to have measured the arrival times of the second photons because it would allow the analysis of flow and other hemodynamic and metabolic values from different groups which may represent flow values from different tissue depths.
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ghaffari (US 20100298895).
Regarding claim 8, together Muehlemann and Kurtz teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Muehlemann further teaches at least one optical source of the plurality of optical sources includes at least one optical source driver (Muehlemann, Paragraphs [0120]-[0123]; the optical sensor #200 to include analog drive circuitry (e.g., an LED controller) configured to control, at least in part, one or more (e.g., all) of the LEDs; Boas, Paragraph [0052]-[0055]; light sources can be optionally be controlled by a light source control #22, Fig. 1), and wherein the at least one optical source and the at least one optical source driver are disposed on the integrated circuit chip (Muehlemann, Paragraphs [0120]-[0123]; Various types of circuitry may be included as part of the optical sensor #200, application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) may be provided to perform one or more functions such as any of those previously described).
Muehlemann does not teach the device comprises a complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) integrated circuit chip; and that the optical source and optical drive are disposed on a CMOS integrated chip.
Ghaffari, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) integrated circuit chip (Paragraph [0115]; CMOS devices offer a variety sophisticated functionality including sensing, imaging, processing,… ); and that the optical source and optical drive are disposed on a CMOS integrated chip (Paragraph [0084]; an integrated circuit(s) having a wide range of functionality… their functionality can include… light emitting electronics which include LEDs, logic, memory, clock…; advantage of using standard ICs (in embodiments, CMOS, on single crystal silicon)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the simple substitution of the integrated circuit chip of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz with the CMOS integrated circuit chip as taught by Ghaffari as it would have had the predictable results of allowing operation of the sensing device while being high quality, high performance, and high functioning circuit components that are also already commonly mass-produced with well-known processes, and which provide a range of functionality and generation of data far superior to that produced by a passive means (Ghaffari, Paragraph [0084]).
Regarding claim 9, together Muehlemann and Kurtz teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above. Muehlemann further teaches at least one optical source of the plurality of optical sources includes at least one optical source emitter (Muehlemann, Paragraph [0100] and [0121]; optical source #202 includes an active emitter (e.g., an LED)), and wherein the at least one optical source emitter is disposed on the integrated circuit chip (Paragraph [0161]; the optical sources 202, optical detectors 204, and circuitry modules 208a-208c may each be disposed on a respective rigid circuit board 1006).
Muehlemann does not teach the device comprises a complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) integrated circuit chip; and that the optical source emitter is disposed on a CMOS integrated chip.
Ghaffari, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) integrated circuit chip (Paragraph [0115]; CMOS devices offer a variety sophisticated functionality including sensing, imaging, processing,… ); and that the optical source emitter is disposed on a CMOS integrated chip (Paragraph [0084]; an integrated circuit(s) having a wide range of functionality… their functionality can include… light emitting electronics which include LEDs, logic, memory, clock…; advantage of using standard ICs (in embodiments, CMOS, on single crystal silicon)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the simple substitution of the integrated circuit chip of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz with the CMOS integrated circuit chip as taught by Ghaffari as it would have had the predictable results of allowing operation of the sensing device while being high quality, high performance, and high functioning circuit components that are also already commonly mass-produced with well-known processes, and which provide a range of functionality and generation of data far superior to that produced by a passive means (Ghaffari, Paragraph [0084]).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Ghaffari as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Sutin (US 20190053721).
Regarding claim 10, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, and Ghaffari teach all of the limitations of claim 9 as noted above.
Together Muehlemann and Ghaffari do not teach at least one optical source emitter is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL).
Sutin, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a diffuse optical tomography (DOT) device (Paragraph [0114]) comprising at least one optical source emitter that is a vertical-cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL) (Paragraphs [0058]-[0059]; The TR-DCS source can be a vertical cavity surface-emitting laser (VCSEL)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have substituted the light source of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Ghaffari with a VCSEL as it would have allowed adjusting the coherence length of the light (Sutin, Paragraph [0066]) which would have allowed choosing an illumination coherence length only of length of a smaller desired fraction of the path length distribution. In this way, it becomes possible to select the autocorrelation signal only from the fraction of light with the desired path lengths (Sutin, Paragraph [0074]).
Regarding claim 11, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, Ghaffari, and Sutin teach all of the limitations of claim 10 as noted above.
Muehlemann discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose the VCSEL is configured to generate the first NIR photons at a wavelength of about 670nm, about 800nm, or about 850nm.
Sutin further teaches the VCSEL is configured to generate the first photons at a wavelength of about 670nm, about 800nm, or about 850nm (Paragraph [0062]; TR-DCS source can be configured to transmit light having a wavelength of between 400 nm and 1500 nm, a wavelength of between 600 nm and 1000 nm, a wavelength of between 800 nm and 1350 nm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the VCSEL of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Ghaffari and Sutin to have generated the first photons at a wavelength of about 670nm, about 800nm, or about 850nm as taught by Sutin because it would have improved the device by allowing dynamics and properties of several species of proteins or compounds to be detected (Sutin, Paragraphs [0128]-[0130]).
Claims 12-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Sutin as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Webster-2013 (US 20130193546).
Regarding claim 12, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, and Sutin teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as noted above.
Together Muehlemann and Sutin do not teach that each of the SPAD detectors includes at least one well implant that has a particular size to reduce a probability of carrier generation outside of a multiplication region.
Webster-2013, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a SPAD detector including at least one well implant (Paragraph [0020]-[0022] and [0098]; implants, deep well implants, Fig. 4) that has a particular size (Paragraph [0035]; the dimensions of the deep n-well may be 8 µm) to reduce a probability of carrier generation (Paragraph [0032] and [0104]; reduce the breakdown voltage of the active junction relative to the other boundaries of the first region) outside of a multiplication region (Paragraph [0100]; SPAD multiplication junction, Fig. 4 #414).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the simple substitution of the SPAD detectors of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Sutin with the SPAD detectors as taught by Webster-2013 including at least one well implant that has a particular size to reduce a probability of carrier generation outside of a multiplication region as it would have reduced the time it takes for a carrier generated far away from the junction to reach the junction and trigger avalanche breakdown and this therefore improves (lowers) the timing jitter of the detector; increase photon detection probability; and improve photon detection efficiency (Webster-2013, Paragraphs [0148]-[0150]).
Regarding claim 13, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, Sutin, and Webster-2013 teach all of the limitations of claim 12 as noted above.
Muehlemann discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose the particular size of the at least one well implant is about 3um to 8um deep.
Webster-2013 further teaches the particular size of the at least one well implant is about 3 µm to 8 µm deep (Paragraph [0035]; the dimensions of the deep n-well may be 8 µm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the well implant of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz, Sutin, and Webster-2013 to have been about 3um to 8um deep as taught by Webster-2013 because it would have been a well-understood method of forming well implants in SPAD detectors that further would have allowed absorbing and thus detection of specific wavelengths of light, thereby improving detection of signals the selected wavelengths (Webster-2013, Paragraph [0164]).
Regarding claim 14, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, and Sutin teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as noted above.
Together Muehlemann and Sutin do not teach the DOT device further comprises a plurality of active quenching circuits, wherein each of the SPAD detectors has an active quenching circuit coupled thereto.
Webster-2013, however, teaches a SPAD detector having an active quenching circuit coupled thereto (Paragraphs [0038]-[0041], [0118], and [0119]; an integrated circuit comprising a SPAD, the integrated circuit may further comprise a quench circuit; provided some manner of switching the SPAD on and off into above breakdown condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the simple substitution of the SPAD detectors of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Sutin with the SPAD detectors as taught by Webster-2013 such that the DOT further comprises a plurality of active quenching circuits, wherein each of the SPAD detectors has an active quenching circuit coupled thereto as it would have allowed a high positive breakdown voltage SPAD to be more compatible with the CMOS circuitry (Webster-2013, Paragraphs [0118] and [0119]).
Regarding claim 18, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, and Sutin teach all of the limitations of claim 4 as noted above.
Together Muehlemann and Sutin do not teach that each of the SPAD detectors has at least one region that surrounds a multiplication region that is shielded by metal.
Webster-2013, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a SPAD detector having at least one region (Paragraph [0009]; guard ring, Fig. 3 #304) that surrounds a multiplication region (Paragraph [0009]; multiplication region, Fig. 3) that is shielded by metal (Paragraph [0009]; metal ring, Fig. 3, #306).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have made the simple substitution of the SPAD detectors of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz and Sutin with the SPAD detectors as taught by Webster-2013 such that each of the SPAD detectors has at least one region that surrounds a multiplication region that is shielded by metal as it would have successfully raised the breakdown voltage of the periphery of the active region of the detector above the breakdown voltage of the planar, or light sensitive, region, thus allowing more effective operation of the SPAD (Webster-2013, Paragraph [0008]).
Claims 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz, Sutin, and Webster-2013 as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Webster-2014 (US 20140191115).
Regarding claim 15, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, Sutin, and Webster-2013 teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as noted above.
Together Muehlemann, Sutin, and Webster-2013 do not teach that each of the active quenching circuits is configured to control a tunable time activation window of its respective SPAD detector.
Webster-2014, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a SPAD sensor circuit wherein the active quenching circuits (Paragraphs [0054]-[0056]; Active quench circuit AQ, Fig. 6) is configured to control a tunable time activation window (Paragraphs [0059]-[0067] and [0071]; the active quench circuit AQ will respond after a suitable delay (quench time) by resetting the capacitor through transistor and hence also resetting the SPAD cathode; the dead time of the SPAD can be controlled by conventional active quench circuitry) of its respective SPAD detector (Paragraphs [0054]-[0056]; SPAD).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz, Sutin, and Webster-2013 such that each of the active quenching circuits is configured to control a tunable time activation window of its respective SPAD detector as it would have allowed time-correlated lifetime estimation to be fully integrated into CMOS, thereby improving the device cost (Webster-2014, Paragraph [0070]).
Regarding claim 16, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, Sutin, and Webster-2013 teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as noted above.
Together Muehlemann, Sutin, and Webster-2013 do not teach each of the active quenching circuits is effectuated using a programmable delay line.
Webster-2014, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a SPAD sensor circuit (Paragraph [0014]; a sensor circuit comprising: a single photon avalanche diode) wherein each of the active quenching circuits is effectuated using a programmable delay line (Paragraph [0066]; The SPAD enable terminal could be connected to a digital state machine of some description which could intelligently perform arming and recharge … after a user-specified time delay).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the active quenching circuits of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz, Sutin, and Webster-2013 to have been effectuated using a programmable delay line as taught by Webster-2014 because this method has the advantage of a much higher maximum pulse rate and a well-defined dead time of the system which would improve the operation of the detector (Webster-2014, Paragraph [0066]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz, Sutin, Webster-2013, and Webster-2014 as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Roukes (US 20160150963).
Regarding claim 17, together Muehlemann, Kurtz, Sutin, Webster-2013, and Webster-2014 teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as noted above.
Muehlemann discloses the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose a Time-To-Digital Conversion core configured to generate a clock signal, wherein a delay of the programmable delay line is tuned by a phase of the clock signal.
Webster-2014 further teaches a clock signal (Paragraphs [0046]-[0048]; clock signals, Fig. 3), wherein a delay (Paragraph [0035]; after a delay generated from some digital logic connected to the SPAD output) of the programmable delay line is tuned by a phase of the clock signal (Paragraphs [0019] and [0047]-[0050]; on opposite phases of the clock).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further incorporated of Webster-2014 into the circuitry of Muehlemann in view of Sutin, Webster-2013, and Webster-2014 such that a delay of the programmable delay line is tuned by a phase of the clock signal because it would have short duty cycle edges so that the transition on the SPAD node is fast as the voltage is pumped on the positive edges of clock and notclock signals (Webster-2014, Paragraph [0048]) and thus makes it possible to store the high voltage and enables voltages to be pumped above the breakdown voltage of the DNW-substrate junction by a clock voltage at each stage of the charge pump (Webster-2014, Paragraph [0046]).
Together Muehlemann, Sutin, Webster-2013, and Webster-2014 do not teach the DOT device comprises a Time-To-Digital conversion core generating the clock signal.
Roukes, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a NIR sensor device comprising a Time-To-Digital conversion core (Paragraphs [0076] and [0077]; time-to-digital converter circuitry, Fig. 12 #30) generating the clock signal (Paragraphs [0076] and [0077]; provide a clocking signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Muehlemann in view of Sutin, Kurtz, Webster-2013, and Webster-2014 to have further comprised a Time-To-Digital conversion core to generate the clock signal as it would have had the predictable results of providing digital time codes to the controller and the time gated SPAD circuitry (Roukes, Paragraphs [0076] and [0077]) and further allow generation of a digital quantification of the fluorescence photon counts detected by each pixel during the relevant integration time dictated by to the reporter kinetic (Roukes, Paragraph [0075]).
Claims 20, 25, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann (US 20140275891) in view of Kurtz (US 20070263226 A1), and Sutin (US 20180070830).
Regarding claims 20, 25, and 30, Muehlemann teaches a non-transitory computer-accessible medium (Paragraph [0394]; computer readable media, non-transitory media) having stored thereon computer-executable instructions (Paragraph [0394]; program instructions executable by a device, e.g. a computer, a computer readable storage medium encoded with one or more programs) for determining information (Abstract, Paragraphs [0062]-[0066]; to provide and/or evaluate a condition or characteristic of a subject of interest) regarding at least one anatomical structure (Paragraph [0062]; such as the brain of a human patient) using diffuse optical tomography (DOT) (Paragraph [0063]; systems for performing diffuse optical tomography (DOT) measurements of a subject, Figs. 1 and 2 #100 and 200);
a system (Paragraph [0062]-[0069]; Aspects of the present application relate to systems and methods for using optical tomography; system, Fig. 1 #100) for determining information (Abstract, Paragraphs [0062]-[0066]; to provide and/or evaluate a condition or characteristic of a subject of interest) regarding at least one anatomical structure (Paragraph [0062]; such as the brain of a human patient) using diffuse optical tomography (DOT) (Paragraph [0063]; systems for performing diffuse optical tomography (DOT) measurements of a subject, Figs. 1 and 2 #100 and 200) comprising an array of integrated circuit nodes (Paragraph [0158]; circuitry modules 208a-208c, Fig. 10; The set of circuitry modules 208a-c are considered to be an array of integrated circuit nodes as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation), a plurality of optical detectors which are controlled by the at least one node (Paragraph [0120]-[0123]; the optical sensor 200 may also include control circuitry (or control electronics) for controlling operation of the optical sources 202 and/or optical detectors 204; circuitry modules 208a-c Figs. 2A and 10), and a computer hardware arrangement (Paragraphs [0133] and [0394]-[0401]; computer);
and a method (Paragraph [0062]-[0069] and [0269]-[0273]; Aspects of the present application relate to systems and methods for using optical tomography) determining information (Abstract, Paragraphs [0062]-[0066]; to provide and/or evaluate a condition or characteristic of a subject of interest) regarding at least one anatomical structure using diffuse optical tomography (DOT) (Paragraph [0063]; systems for performing diffuse optical tomography (DOT) measurements of a subject, Figs. 1 and 2 #100 and 200);
wherein, when a computer arrangement (Paragraphs [0133] and [0394]-[0401]; computer) executes the instructions, the computer arrangement is configured to perform the procedure comprising:
with at least one node of integrated circuit nodes which are provided in an array (Paragraph [0158]; circuitry modules 208a-208c, Fig. 10; Paragraph [0120]; circuitry modules 208a-208c may be integrated circuit packages; The set of circuitry modules 208a-c are considered to be an array of integrated circuit nodes as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation; Fig. 10 shows there are a plurality of ordered circuit module which is considered to be an array as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation),
controlling a plurality of sources (Paragraph [0120]-[0123]; the optical sensor 200 may also include control circuitry (or control electronics) for controlling operation of the optical sources 202 and/or optical detectors 204; circuitry modules 208a-c Figs. 2A and 10) so as to generate a plurality of first near infrared (NIR) photons to impact the at least one anatomical structure (Paragraph [0095]; an optical signal (e.g., a light ray; Paragraph [0120]-[0121]; the drive circuitry may control the emission intensity and power of the optical sources; application specific integrated circuit may provide one or more analog and/or digital functions) 304a-304c may be directed into the subject from an optical source 202, Fig 3A; provide information about the tissue of a subject; subject's head, Fig. 3A #110; Paragraph [0109]; optical sources 202 of the optical sensor 200 may emit light within the NIR (near infrared) spectrum… between approximately 600 nm and approximately 1,000 nm; Paragraph [0111]; The optical detectors may detect the wavelengths emitted by the optical sources);
with the at least one node or at least one further node of the integrated circuit nodes (Paragraph [0160]; The circuitry modules 208a-208c may also be disposed on and interconnected by flexible circuitry board strips as shown, and may be coupled to the optical sources and/or optical detectors in this manner, Fig. 10), controlling a plurality of optical detectors (Paragraph [0092]; plurality of optical detectors, Figs. 2A and 10 #204; Paragraphs [0120]-[0121]; The analog receive circuitry may be configured to receive an analog signal from one or more (e.g., all) optical detectors of the optical sensor) to detect a plurality of second photons from at least one anatomical structure based on the first NIR photons, and thereby generate signals associated with the detection (Paragraphs [0111], [0243], and [0244]; The optical detectors may detect the wavelengths emitted by the optical sources; absorption or scattering within a subject; Paragraph [0095]; of the optical signals may follow an arc before exiting the head 110 and being detected by one or more optical detectors of the optical sensor; Paragraphs [0243]-[0244]; provide information about absorption or scattering within a subject; The optical signals may pass through the subject and be detected by the optical detectors upon exit from the subject);
determining an absorption of the first NIR photons (Paragraph [0065]; absorption may be estimated from detected light intensity; absorption of light at wavelengths in the 600 to 900 nm range) by the at least one anatomical structure (Paragraphs [0065] and [0066]; Absorption due to oxygenated and deoxygenated hemoglobin, analysis of a subject's head) only based on non-rejected signals (Paragraphs [0077] and [0078]; Collected signals may then be provided to the central unit for performing post processing on the signals; Examiner notes the collected signals are non-rejected signals); and
determining the information regarding the at least one anatomical structure based on
the absorption (Paragraph [0066]-[0073]; provide and/or analyze information relating to various physical conditions or characteristics, provide and/or analyze information relating to absorption).
Muehlemann does not teach the plurality of second NIR photons are backscattered;
determining the time of flight for each of the second NIR photons based on the signals; and
rejecting a portion of the signals based on the time of flight of the second NIR photons.
Kurtz, however, teaches a diffuse optical tomography (DOT) device (Paragraph [0071]; a diagnostic imaging device for examining dermal tissues; Paragraph [0100]; the systems of FIGS. 5, 6, and 7 of this application might be extended to provide a diffuse optical tomography imaging modality) wherein each of the optical detectors (Paragraph [0072]; Detector 280 is nominally an area sensor device with a row and column structure) is configured to detect a plurality of second NIR photons backscattered (Paragraph [0072]; Some portion of this incident light will be reflected or backscattered from the various tissue components… and can be imaged by objective lens 270 onto detector 280) from the at least one anatomical structure based on the first NIR photons (Paragraph [0072]; Incident light provided by the illumination system 205 will penetrate the tissue 290. Some portion of this incident light will be reflected or backscattered from the various tissue components; Paragraph [0075]; provide illumination light with an increasing nominal wavelength… ~530 nm, then ~630 nm, and ~830 nm light).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Muehlemann such that the detectors are configured to detect a plurality of second NIR photons backscattered from the anatomical structure as taught by Kurtz because it is a known method of performing diffuse optical tomography for detecting tumors in the breast and non-invasively determining hemoglobin concentration, hemoglobin oxygen saturation, cytochromes, lipids and water in vivo (Paragraph [0099]), and further the distance or spatial information is determined from the time delay of reflected echoes, allowing imaging in-depth profiles at discrete points along the surface (Paragraph [0012]).
Muehlemann and Kurtz does not explicitly teach determining the time of flight for each of the second NIR photons based on the signals; and
rejecting a portion of the signals based on the time of flight of the second NIR photons.
Sutin, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a diffuse optical tomography (DOT) system (Paragraph [0114]), method (Paragraph [0055] and [0114]), and computer readable media (Paragraphs [0110]-[0111]; computer readable media), the method comprising:
detecting a plurality of second NIR photos backscattered from or generated by the at least one anatomical structure (Paragraph [0074]; Light is received from the specimen by one or more detectors; Paragraph [0021]; making a TR-DCS measurement of scattering particle dynamics within a target medium; receiving at least a portion of the plurality of photons at the TR-DCS detector after passing through the target medium) based on first NIR photons (Paragraph [0021]; TR-DCS source configured to emit pulses of light ... a first pulse of light from the TR-DCS source into the target medium), and thereby generate signals associated with detection (Paragraph [0021]; thereby generating a TR-DCS detector signal including a timing information and a correlation information for the at least a portion of the plurality of photons);
determining a time of flight for each of the second NIR photons based on the signals (Paragraph [0074]; Each detected photon is tagged by one or more timestamps. One timestamp represents the time of flight through the tissue and the other represents the time of arrival with respect to a previously detected photon or absolute time);
rejecting a portion of the signals based on a time of flight of the second NIR photons (Paragraph [0074]; Photons are separated into one or more groups based on their time of flight; Different intensity correlations are calculated singly or in combination of one or more groups. The analysis of flow and other hemodynamic and metabolic values can be determined independently… of the timestamps from one or more sources and/or detectors; The process of separating out times of flight and independently performing analysis on single groups is considered to read on the claimed limitation of rejecting a portion of the signals based on a time of flight of the second NIR photons as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation; Paragraph [0131] and [0137]-[0139]; Determining the fluid flow of the inner portion can use photons where the transit time exceeds a pre-determined threshold or a gate time. Measuring the fluid flow of the superficial layer can use photons where the transit time is less than the pre-determined threshold or the gate time; deactivating a gated detector during an initial time period and activating the gated detector during a subsequent time period; The measurements are further time-gated which further reads on the claimed limitations as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation); and
determining an absorption of the first NIR photons by the at least one anatomical structure only based on non-rejected signals (Paragraphs [0106]; TR processor 32, 132 can be used to construct a TPSF from which the scattering and/or absorption coefficients can be estimated… used to estimate the scattering and/or absorption coefficients from a phase shift of the detected signal relative to the source and the associated AC amplitude, DC amplitude, and/or modulation; Paragraph [0107]; the signal processor 28, 128, and/or the TR processor 32, 132 can be configured to utilize time-gating of the measured signals; The utilization of only time-gated signals for processing the absorption coefficients of the signal relative to the source is considered to read on the claimed limitation of determining an absorption of the first NIR photons by the at least one anatomical structure only based on non-rejected signals as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the instruction stored on the computer-accessible medium, the system, and the method of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz to further include determining a time of flight for each of second NIR photons based on the signals and rejecting a portion of the signals based on a time of flight of the second NIR photons as it would have allowed discrimination of the contribution of dynamic flow signals from different tissues and thus allowed independent determination of metabolic values for the different tissues (Sutin, Paragraph [0010] and [0074]). Furthermore gating of the signals would have reduced or eliminated saturation that can result from an initial burst of light arriving at the gated detector (Sutin, Paragraph [0139]).
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boas-214 (US 6516214).
Regarding claim 36, together Muehlemann and Kurtz teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Muehlemann does not teach the second photons are generated as a result of a fluorescence by the anatomical structure.
Boas-214, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a diffuse optical tomography device (Col. 1, Ln. 59-Col. 2, Ln. 3), wherein the second photons are generated as a result of a fluorescence by the anatomical structure (Col. 7, ln. 45-Col. 8, ln. 4; measurements at a wavelength different from the emitter wavelength are also possible if the dye is a fluorophore; fluorescence detection from dyes injected into the subject for DOT measurements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the device of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz such that the second photons are generated as a result of a fluorescence by the anatomical structure as taught by Boas-214 because it would have needed a smaller concentration of dyes compared to other absorptive contrast agents, thereby permitting repeated injections every minute rather than every 10 minutes, thus improving imaging and monitoring (Boas-214, Col. 7, ln. 45-Col. 8, ln. 4).
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Webster-2013 (US 20130193546).
Regarding claim 37, together Muehlemann and Kurtz teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Muehlemann does not teach a complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) integrated circuit chip, wherein the plurality of optical detectors are integrated on or in the CMOS integrated circuit chip.
Webster-2013, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) integrated circuit chip (Paragraph [0014]; provided a single photon avalanche diode, SPAD, for use in a CMOS integrated circuit; Paragraph [0098]; CMOS integrated circuit 400, Fig. 4), wherein the plurality of optical detectors are integrated on or in the CMOS integrated circuit chip (Paragraph [0014]; provided a single photon avalanche diode, SPAD; Paragraph [0044]; integrated circuit may include at least one further SPAD (for example to form an imaging array); Paragraph [0098]; a single photon avalanche diode (SPAD) that is fabricated as part of a CMOS integrated circuit 400. The SPAD 404 is formed in the epitaxial layer (`epi-layer`) 402 that has been grown on a substrate (not shown); The SPAD is grown in the CMOS chips which is considered to read on the claimed limitation as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the circuit chip of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz by making the simple substitution of the integrated circuit chip with the CMOS integrated circuit chip wherein the plurality of optical detectors are integrated on or in the CMOS integrated circuit chip as taught by Webster-2013 as it would have had the predictable results of allowing operation of the sensing device while being particularly convenient and economical to form photodiodes in the fabrication process (Webster-2013, Paragraph [0002]).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muehlemann in view of Kurtz as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Horstmeyer (US 10420498).
Regarding claim 38, together Muehlemann and Kurtz teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Muehlemann does not teach the at least one node or the at least one further node comprises the plurality of optical detectors.
Horstmeyer, however, teaches in a similar field of endeavor a photodetector array and a processor (Abstract) wherein at least one node or the at least one further node comprises the plurality of optical detectors (Col. 5, Ln. 13-40; each photodetector 106 may be disposed on a surface 202. Surface 202 may be implemented by a printed circuit board (PCB), an ASIC, or any other suitable surface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the integrated circuits of Muehlemann in view of Kurtz such that the at least one node or the at least one further node comprises the plurality of optical detectors as taught by Horstmeyer because it would include many (e.g., 100 to 100,000) photodetectors, as opposed to a single photodetector as used in conventional DCS systems, the systems and methods described herein can dramatically speed up the sampling rate of DCS into the sub-millisecond range. By speeding up acquisition into this range, the systems and methods described herein can sample at rates that are sufficient to resolve event-related optical signals (also referred to as fast-optical signals), thereby improving diagnostic measurements of brain and cell activity (Horstmeyer, Col. 3, Ln. 52-Col. 4, Ln. 7).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding arguments to the rejection of claims 20, 25, and 30, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the references of Muehlemann in view of Sutin does not teach “a determination of an absorption of the first photons by the at least one anatomical structure only based on non-rejected signals”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Examiner would like to point out the reference of Muehlemann teaches determining absorption for collected signals as described in paragraph [0065] and [0077]-[0078]. The collected signals are understood to be non-rejected signals as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Muehlemann does not teach, however, that the rejected signals are based on a time of flight of the second NIR photons.
Sutin is relied upon as teaching rejecting a portion of the signals based on the time of flight of the second NIR photons by performing the steps of separating photons into one or more groups based on their time of flight and performing different intensity correlations are calculated singly or in combination of one or more group as described in at least paragraph [0074]. This step of gating the photons into specific groups of time flight is considered to read on the claimed limitations of “rejected signals are based on a time of flight of the second NIR photons” as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Sutin teaches the claimed limitation of the SPAD detectors being configured to be active only during a tunable time window. Sutin, in paragraph [0139], teaches activating and deactivating the detectors in order to time-gate the signals. Furthermore, Sutin, in paragraph [0173], teaches shifting the time gates which is considered to read on the claimed limitation of configured to be active only during a tunable time window as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation Further Sutin teaches time-gating detection can be utilized on the detector to limit detection to photons having a particular time of flight as described in paragraph [0136]. The photons collected under the time gating is considered to be only non-rejected photons as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Sutin further teaches determining an absorption of the first NIR photons by the at least one anatomical structure only based on non-rejected signals as described in paragraphs [0106]-[0107] (TR processor 32, 132 can be used to construct a TPSF from which the scattering and/or absorption coefficients can be estimated; TR processor 32, 132 can be configured to utilize time-gating of the measured signals). One would have been motivated to include the steps of determining a time of flight for each of second NIR photons based on the signals and rejecting a portion of the signals based on a time of flight of the second NIR photons as taught by Sutin because it would have allowed discrimination of the contribution of dynamic flow signals from different tissues and thus allowed independent determination of metabolic values for the different tissues.
Applicant further agues the disclosure of Sutin does not teach or suggest determining the absorption only based on non-rejected signals, and further that Muehlemann does not provide mechanisms to make sure only non-rejected signals are used for determination of absorption. Examiner respectfully disagrees. As noted above, the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. Sutin is relied upon explicitly because Muehlemann does not teach the claimed features. In the referenced art of Sutin, a mechanism of time gating the photons by time of flight is described in at least paragraph [0074], specifically by photon is tagging each photon by one or more timestamps and separated into groups, as noted above. Such separation into groups is considered to read on the claimed limitation of non-rejected signals as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, intensity correlation can be calculated from a single groups as further described in paragraph [0074]. This is considered to read on the limitation of determining an absorption … only based on non rejected signals as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. The selection of a single group of photons is already considered to be only non-rejected signals and thus any determination absorptions of from such groups would thus result in claimed limitations. Sutin For these reasons, rejections of claims 20, 25, and 30 under 35 USC are maintained.
Regarding arguments to the rejections of claims 8 and 38, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues the prior art of Muehlemann in view of Ghaffari does not teach the claim limitation of “the at least one optical source and the at least one optical source driver are disposed on the CMOS integrated circuit chip”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The reference of Muehlemann explicitly teaches the optical source includes an optical driver as described in at least paragraphs [0120]-[0123] (the optical sensor #200 to include analog drive circuitry (e.g., an LED controller) configured to control, at least in part, one or more (e.g., all) of the LEDs). Furthermore, Muehlemann further teaches optical circuitry is provided on the circuit as described in paragraph [0121] (the drive circuitry may control the ON/OFF state of the optical sources…) and that the circuit is embodied as an integrated circuit in paragraph [0123]. Muehlemann does not explicitly teach that the device comprises a complementary-metal-oxide-semiconductor (CMOS) integrated circuit chip and that the optical source and optical drive are disposed on a CMOS integrated chip. Ghaffari, however, is relied upon to teach CMOS integrated circuit chips for wearable sensor devices wherein the optical source and optical drive are disposed on the CMOS integrated chip, as described in at least Paragraph [0084] (in embodiments, CMOS, on single crystal silicon; and Components within electronic devices or devices are described herein, and include… LED… circuit elements, control elements). One would have been motivated to have included the optical sources and drivers as part of the CMOS chip as taught by Ghaffari because already commonly mass-produced with well-known processes, and which provide a range of functionality and generation of data far superior to that produced by a passive means. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 8 over Muehlemann in view of Ghaffari is maintained.
Applicant further argues the reference of Ghaffari does not teach the optical source and optical source driver on the same CMOS integrate chip. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Ghaffari teaches the CMOS integrated chip as including LEDs, logic, memory, clock, and in an single crystal in an embodiment which is considered to read on the optical source and optical source driver on being on the same CMOS integrate chip as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, CMOS chips with integrated with drivers and sources are well-known and understood elements in the art for optical devices, for example, as cited in Mesh (US 9304272 B2), Col. 2, ln. 64-Col. 3, ln. 21.
Regarding arguments to the rejection of claim 38, Applicant repeats the same arguments as filed in the Remarks filed on 07/21/2025. Response to such arguments from the Final Rejection filed 11/06/2025 are reiterated herein. Applicant asserts the prior art of Horstmeyer fails to teach the limitations of “the at least one node or the at least one further node comprises the plurality of optical detectors”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner would like to point out the limitation of “integrated circuit node” of claim 1 is broadly recited, and that the photodetectors being disposed on a surface of a circuit board or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) of Horstmeyer is considered to read on the claimed limitation of at least one node or the at least one further node comprises the plurality of optical detectors as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Applicant further argues the detectors of circuits of Horstmeyer do not control the optical sources. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The reference of Muehlemann already teaches the claim limitation that the node controls the plurality of optical nodes as noted in the rejection of claim 1 and as described in at least paragraphs [0120]-[0123] of Muehlemann (the optical sensor 200 may also include control circuitry (or control electronics) for controlling operation of the optical sources 202 and/or optical detectors 204; circuitry modules 208a-c). The reference of Horstmeyer is relied upon to show the detectors may be implemented on the circuit itself, which is considered to read on the claimed limitation of “least one node or the at least one further node comprises the plurality of optical detectors” as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. Furthermore, while not relied upon in the rejection, Horstmeyer teaches the detectors are controlled by a circuit (Col. 11, ln. 1-9; to facilitate operation of multiple photodetector arrays 802, DCS system 800 includes a controller unit 804 (which may be similar to controller unit 112); Col. 4, ln. 30-39; controller unit 112, which may be implemented by any suitable computing device, integrated circuit). As reiterated, the recitation of a node is broadly recited, thus the photodetectors being disposed on a surface implemented by a printed circuit board (PCB), as described by Horstmeyer in at least col. 5, Ln. 13-40, is considered to read on the claimed limitation of at least one node comprising the plurality of optical detectors as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation. For these reasons, the rejection of claim 38 over Muehlemann in view of Horstmeyer is maintained.
For these reasons, rejections of claims 20, 25, 30, 8 and 38 under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Dean N Edun whose telephone number is (571)270-3745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anh Tuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/DEAN N EDUN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
06/30/2026
Prosecution Insights