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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is in response to the remarks filed on 12/16/2025.
The amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
The claim objections have been withdrawn in light of claim amendments.
The 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn in light of the claim amendments.
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 12 and 16 for being directed to non-statutory subject matter for the computer readable medium, is withdrawn in light of claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations “
determining one or more transformation parameters of an image registration algorithm
for registering the first speckle images with each other, the transformation parameters being based on a similarity measure of pixel values of at least one group of pixels in each image of a plurality of images of the at least one sequence of images, the images in the plurality of images being selected from the first speckle images or each said image of the plurality of images being associated with the first speckle images”, and “determining first speckle contrast images based on the first speckle images”, “determining registered speckle contrast images by registering the first speckle contrast images based on the one or more transformation parameters and the image registration algorithm”, and “computing a weighted average of the registered first speckle contrast images”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could calculate transformation parameters between two or more images/images within an image sequence using a pen and paper, as well as perform calculations including calculation of speckle contrast in in image, and the weighted average of the contrast image. One of ordinary skill in the art could also register multiple images together based off pixel values in an image.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “exposing a target area to coherent first light of a first wavelength, the target area including living tissue”, and “capturing at least one sequence of images, the at least one sequence of images comprising first speckle images, the first speckle images being captured during exposure with the first light”.
Emitting and receiving coherent light, and capturing a sequence of images is a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “first light” however, lights are well-known generic components that are used for capturing images.
Accordingly, claim 1 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 2,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “wherein the at least one sequence of images comprises a sequence of second images” and “the plurality of images is selected from the sequence of second images, each of the second images being associated with a first speckle image.”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen. One of ordinary skill in the art could select/group a second set of images that are associated with a first set of speckle images.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “exposing the target area to second light of one or more second wavelengths, wherein exposure to the second light is alternated with the exposure to the first light or is simultaneous with the exposure to the first light”, “the second images being captured during exposure with the second light”
Obtaining a second set of images in a second wavelength a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “second light” however, lights are well-known generic components that are used for capturing images.
Accordingly, claim 2 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 3,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “determining second speckle contrast images based on the sequence of second speckle images”, and “adjusting the first speckle contrast images based on changes in speckle contrast magnitude in the sequence of second speckle contrast images”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could calculate contrast in a second image using pen and paper, and adjust the first speckle contrast values in the image, with the calculated contrast magnitude in the second set of images.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “the sequence of second images is a sequence of second speckle images”.
Obtaining a second set of sequence images a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “wherein the light of the at least second wavelength is coherent light of a predetermined second wavelength,”, however, coherent lights are well-known generic components that are used for capturing images.
Accordingly, claim 3 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 4,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the first wavelength is a wavelength in the red part of the electromagnetic spectrum”.
Obtaining light at a first wavelength is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 4 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 5,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “wherein a weight of an image is based on the transformation parameters or based on a relative magnitude of the speckle contrast”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could calculate a weight of an image based off of other calculated parameters in the image, including the transformation parameters and the calculated relative magnitude of the speckle contrast.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements do not recite extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 5 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 6,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “wherein the at least one group of pixels represent predetermined features in the plurality of images”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could group/categorize pixels based off of predetermined features.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements do not recite extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 6 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 7,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “filtering the plurality of images with a filter adapted to increase the probability that one said group of pixels represents a feature corresponding to an anatomical feature” This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could perform calculations and remove/filter values in order to increase the probability that the pixels are related to/correspond to an anatomical feature.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements do not recite extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 7 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 8,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “determining a plurality of associated ones of said groups of pixels based on the similarity measure, each said group of pixels belonging to a different image from the plurality of images”, “determining a plurality of displacement vectors based on positions of the groups of pixels relative to the respective images from the plurality of images, the displacement vectors representing motion of the target area relative to the image sensor”, and “determining the transformation parameters based on the plurality of displacement vectors”. This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could group/categorize pixels based off of the values, and calculate displacement vectors based off the location/motion of the pixel, and calculate the transformation based off of the displacement vectors/values.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements do not recite extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 8 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 9,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “dividing each image of the first speckle contrast images, and each image in the plurality of images into a plurality of regions; and wherein determining transformation parameters comprises determining transformation parameters for each region”, and “determining a sequence of registered first speckle contrast images comprises registering each region of the first speckle contrast image, based on a transformation based on the corresponding region in the second image” This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could group/categorize pixels in each image into multiple regions, and register the different images based off the transformations.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements do not recite extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 9 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 10 and 20,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation “computing a perfusion intensity, based on a combined speckle image”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and. One of ordinary skill in the art could calculate a perfusion intensity of a combined speckle image using a pen and paper.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the target area comprises a perfused organ, and/or comprises one more blood vessels and/or lymphatic vessels, the method further comprising”, “wherein the perfused organ is perfused by blood and/or lymph fluid”.
Obtaining an image from a target area is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claims 10 and 20 are directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 11,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “displaying a combined speckle contrast image or a derivative thereof”.
Displaying an image a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 11 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 12,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A hardware module for an imaging device is disclosed, as therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations
“determine one or more transformation parameters of an image registration algorithm for registering the first speckle images with each other, the transformation parameters being based on a similarity measure of pixel values of at least one group of pixels in each image of a plurality of images, the images in of the plurality of images being selected from the first speckle images or each said image of the plurality of images being associated with the first speckle images; determine first speckle contrast images based on the first speckle images; determine registered speckle contrast images by registering the first speckle contrast images based on the one or more transformation parameters and the image registration algorithm; and compute a weighted average of the registered first speckle contrast images”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and. One of ordinary skill in the art could calculate transformation parameters between two or more images/an image sequence using a pen and paper, as well as perform calculations including calculation of speckle contrast in in image, and the weighted average of the contrast image. One of ordinary skill in the art could also register multiple images together based off pixel values in an image.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “ exposing a target area to coherent first light of a first wavelength, the target area including living tissue” and “ capturing at least one sequence of images, the at least one sequence of images comprising first speckle images, the first speckle images being captured during exposure of the target area with the first light”.
Emitting and receiving coherent light, and capturing a sequence of images is a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “first light” however, lights are well-known generic components that are used for capturing images. The claim additionally recites “a first light source”, “at least one image sensor system”, “a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith, and a processor, coupled to the computer readable storage medium, wherein responsive to executing the computer readable program code”. However, all of these additional elements are well-known generic hardware components used for capturing and processing images.
Accordingly, claim 12 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 13,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A hardware module for an imaging device is disclosed, as therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation
“the plurality of images is selected from the sequence of second images, each of the second images being associated with a first speckle image”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could select/group a second set of images that are associated with a first set of speckle images.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “a second light source for illuminating, simultaneous or alternatingly with the first light source, the target area with light of at least a second wavelength, different from the first wavelength”, and “wherein the at least one image sensor is further configured to capture a sequence of second images, the second images being captured during exposure of the target area with the second light”.
Obtaining a second set of images in a second wavelength a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “a second light source… different from the first wavelength” however, lights are well-known generic components that are used for capturing images.
Accordingly, claim 13 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 14,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A hardware module for an imaging device is disclosed, as therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 12.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “displaying a combined speckle image and/or a derivative thereof.
Displaying an image a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “a display”, however, a display is well-known generic hardware used to depict images.
Accordingly, claim 14 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 15,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A hardware module for an imaging device is disclosed, as therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 12.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial
exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements does not recite extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites the device being selected from the group consisting of: endoscope, a laparoscope, a surgical robot, a handheld laser speckle contrast imaging device and an open surgical laser speckle contrast imaging system.
However, all of these are well-known generic components that are used for capturing laser speckle images.
Accordingly, claim 15 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 16,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computation module for a laser speckle imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitations
“determining one or more transformation parameters of an image registration algorithm
for registering the first speckle images with each other, the transformation parameters being based on a similarity measure of pixel values of at least one group of pixels in each image of a plurality of images of the at least one sequence of images, the images of the plurality of images being selected from the first speckle images or each said image of the plurality of images being associated with the first speckle images”, “determining first speckle contrast images based on the first speckle images”, “determining registered speckle contrast images by registering the first speckle contrast images based on the one or more transformation parameters and the image registration algorithm”, and “computing a weighted average of the registered first speckle contrast images”.
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could calculate transformation parameters between two or more images/an image sequence using a pen and paper, as well as perform calculations including calculation of speckle contrast in in image, and the weighted average of the contrast image. One of ordinary skill in the art could also register multiple images together based off pixel values in an image.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “receiving at least one sequence of images, the at least one sequence of images comprising first speckle images, the first speckle images having been captured during exposure of a target area to coherent first light of a first wavelength, the target area including living tissue”
Receiving a sequence of images is a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites “computer readable storage medium having at least a part of a program embodied therewith, and a processor, coupled to the computer readable storage medium” and “ computer readable storage code “However, all of these additional elements are well-known generic hardware components used for capturing and processing images.
Accordingly, claim 16 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 17,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computation module for a laser speckle imaging system is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim recites the limitation
“the plurality of images is selected from the sequence of second images, each of the second images being associated with a first speckle image”
This limitation, as drafted, according to its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mental-process type abstract idea, which can practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper. One of ordinary skill in the art could select/group a second set of images that are associated with a first set of speckle images.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or be reasonably performed with an aid of pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the at least one sequence of images comprises a sequence of second images, the second images being captured during exposure of the target area with second light, …. wherein exposure of the target area to the second light is alternated with the exposure of the target area to the first light or is simultaneous with the exposure of the target area to the first light”.
Obtaining a second set of images in a second wavelength a form of data gathering that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites the second light having one or more second wavelengths” however, lights are well-known generic components that are used for capturing images.
Accordingly, claim 17 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 18
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A computer program or suite of computer programs comprising at least one software code portion or a computer program product storing at least one software code portion, is disclosed, and is therefore a device.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- The claim does not contain additional elements, and therefore, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. The claim additionally recites a computer program or suite of computer programs, at one software code portion or a computer program product however, these are all well-known generic components that are used for processing of image data.
Accordingly, claim 18 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Regarding claim 19,
Step 1: Statutory category: Yes- A method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging is disclosed, and is therefore a method.
Step 2: Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes- This claim contains a judicial exception as noted above for claim 1.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No- the claim recites the following additional elements of “wherein the light of the at least second wavelength is coherent light of a predetermined second wavelength in a green or blue part of the electromagnetic spectrum”.
Obtaining light at a second wavelength in the green or blue part of the electromagnetic spectrum is a form of data gathering that is a pre-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim.
Accordingly, claim 19 is directed to non-eligible patent subject matter and is therefore rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-5, 9, 12-13, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Califa et al. (US 20220039679 A1, hereinafter "Califa").
Regarding claim 1, Califa teaches a method of motion-compensated laser speckle contrast imaging comprising:
exposing a target area to coherent first light of a first wavelength, the target area including living tissue (directing coherent illumination of a selected wavelength range onto one or more inspection spots of the subjects' body [0008]);
capturing at least one sequence of images, the at least one sequence of images comprising first speckle images, the first speckle images being captured during exposure of the target with the first light (collecting one or more sequences of image data pieces, associated with images of one or more selected inspections spots, and processing the collected image data for determining variations in contrast of speckle patterns in the image data piece [0008]);
determining first speckle contrast images based on the first speckle images (determining contrast measure for each image data piece and collecting the contrast measures from a sequences of image data [0010]);
determining registered speckle contrast images by registering the first speckle contrast images based on the one or more transformation parameters and the image registration algorithm ([0060]-[0061] discloses an alignment module for aligning relative locations between images, i.e. registering the speckle contrast images, using the transformation parameters) ; and
computing a weighted average of the registered first speckle contrast images ([0014] and [0067] discloses determining weighted averages between one or more images).
PNG
media_image1.png
988
986
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Califa reproduced above
Regarding claim 2, Califa teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
exposing the target area to second light of one or more second wavelengths (two or more different wavelength within a selected wavelength range [0053]; second imaging unit [0054]; [0048] further discloses the light source obtaining various wavelengths) wherein the exposure of the target area to the second light is alternated with the exposure of the target area to the first light or is simultaneous with the exposure of the target area to the first light ([0054] discloses that the second imaging unit captures simultaneously as the first, with a different frame rate/larger area) ;
wherein the at least one sequence of images comprises a sequence of second images, the second images being captured during exposure of the target area with the second light ([0053]-[0054] discloses capturing images at different wavelengths/with overlapping areas using two imaging units); and
the plurality of images is selected from the sequence of second images, each of the second images being associated with a first speckle image ([0054] discloses that the second imaging unit captures the area around the inspection region/same as the first).
Regarding claim 3, Califa teaches the method of claim 2,
wherein the light of the at least second wavelength is coherent light of a predetermined second wavelength (separate image may be collected to provide image data (speckle image data) providing speckle pattern under coherent illumination [0070]; two or more different wavelength within a selected wavelength range [0053]; second imaging unit [0054]),
and the sequence of second images is a sequence of second speckle images (light source unit may comprise one or more light sources providing coherent illumination with two or more different wavelengths within a selected wavelength range, said control unit is configured for receiving and processing image data collected in said two or more different wavelength a [0027]; . The light collection unit 110 includes one or more imaging unit directed at the inspection region and possibly its vicinity and generate one or more sequences of image data piece based on collected light [0048]);
the method further comprising:
determining second speckle contrast images based on the sequence of second speckle images (monitor contrast variations in two or more different wavelengths and/or combined contrast variations for the different wavelength [0048]); and
adjusting the first speckle contrast images based on changes in speckle contrast magnitude in the sequence of second speckle contrast images (second imaging unit 140 when used or selected frames from the first imaging unit 130, is used for tracking relative location of the subject with respect to the system 100, and of the illumination sport S with respect to the inspection region R. The region-spot tracking module 620 is configured for receiving image data associated with the video channel (e.g. from the second imaging unit 140) and for processing the image data for tracking of these relative locations [0061])
Regarding claim 4, Califa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first wavelength is a wavelength in the red part of the electromagnetic spectrum (wavelength range of 800-1550 nm [0048]).
Regarding claim 5, Califa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a weight of an image is based on the transformation parameters or based on a relative magnitude of the speckle contrast ([0067] discloses weighting based off of speckle contrast variations/relative magnitude of speckle contrast).
Regarding claim 9, Califa teaches method of claim 1, further comprising:
dividing each image of the first speckle contrast images, and each image in the plurality of images into a plurality of regions (The processor unit may divide the speckle region to two or more sub-regions and determine separate contrast measure for the different sub-regions [0014]); and
wherein determining transformation parameters comprises determining transformation parameters for each region ([0014]-[0015] further discloses calculation of shifts/transformation/parameters for each sub region); and
determining a sequence of registered first speckle contrast images comprises registering each region of the first speckle contrast image, based on a transformation based on the corresponding region in the second image ([0014]-[0015], [0026], [0060]-[0061] further disclose tracking subregions across multiple images/aligning/registering across spots across images using the tracking module).
Regarding claim 12, Califa teaches a hardware module for an imaging device, comprising:
a first light source for exposing a target area to coherent first light of a first wavelength (light source 122 [0058]; The illumination unit 120 may generally utilize coherent light source 122 [0048]), the target area including living tissue (directing coherent illumination of a selected wavelength range onto one or more inspection spots of the subjects' body [0008]);
at least one image sensor system for capturing at least one sequence of images (he light collection unit 110 [0048]), the at least one sequence of images comprising first speckle images, the first speckle images being captured during exposure of the target area with the first light (collecting one or more sequences of image data pieces, associated with images of one or more selected inspections spots, and processing the collected image data for determining variations in contrast of speckle patterns in the image data piece [0008]);
a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having computer readable program code embodied therewith (software or hardware modules [0056]), and a processor, coupled to the computer readable storage medium, wherein responsive to executing the computer readable program code (a computer unit or system including one or more processors, memory utility and input/output modules [0056]), the processor is configured to:
determine one or more transformation parameters of an image registration algorithm for registering the first speckle images with each other ([0014]-[0015] discloses “spot tracking” of relative locations of an illumination spot across images, as well as aligning the images, i.e. an image registration algorithm and transformation parameters; [0015] further discloses physical alignment/transformation parameters of the images; spot tracking module 6010, as disclosed in [0060] further discloses the processing of the images with respect to the illumination spot; Fig. 2 reproduced below with spot tracking module 610), the transformation parameters being based on a similarity measure of pixel values of at least one group of pixels in each image of a plurality of images of the at least one sequence of images, the images in the plurality of images being selected from the first speckle images or each said image of the plurality of images being associated with the first speckle images (discloses that pixel intensity is calculated for a sequence of images; [0062]-[0063] discloses a temporal contrast module, which groups together pixel values in regions/sub regions of each image [0059]);
determine first speckle contrast images based on the first speckle images (determining contrast measure for each image data piece and collecting the contrast measures from a sequences of image data [0010]);
determine registered speckle contrast images by registering the first speckle contrast images based on the one or more transformation parameters and the image registration algorithm ([0060]-[0061] discloses an alignment module for aligning relative locations between images, i.e. registering the speckle contrast images, using the transformation parameters); and
compute a weighted average of the registered first speckle contrast images ([0014] and [0067] discloses determining weighted averages between one or more images).
Regarding claim 13, Califa teaches the hardware module of claim 12, further comprising:
a second light source for illuminating (light source 124 [0058]), simultaneous or alternatingly with the first light source ([0054] discloses that the second imaging unit captures simultaneously as the first, with a different frame rate/larger area), the target area with light of at least a second wavelength, different from the first wavelength (two or more different wavelength within a selected wavelength range [0053]);
wherein the at least one image sensor is further configured to capture a sequence of second images, the second images being captured during exposure of the target area with the second light ([0053]-[0054] discloses capturing images at different wavelengths/with overlapping areas using two imaging units); and
the plurality of images is selected from the sequence of second images, each of the second images being associated with a first speckle image ([0054] discloses that the second imaging unit captures the area around the inspection region/same as the first).
Regarding claim 16, Califa teaches a computation module for a laser speckle imaging system, comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium having at least a part of a program embodied therewith (software or hardware modules [0056]), and a processor, coupled to the computer readable storage medium, wherein responsive to executing the computer readable storage code, the processor is configured to perform executable operations (a computer unit or system including one or more processors, memory utility and input/output modules [0056]), the executable operations comprising:
receiving at least one sequence of images (generally comprising at least one processor and storage utility, is configured for receiving input data in the form of one or more sequences of image data pieces collected by the first imaging unit [0009]), the at least one sequence of images comprising first speckle images, the first speckle images having been captured during exposure of a target area to coherent first light of a first wavelength(collecting one or more sequences of image data pieces, associated with images of one or more selected inspections spots, and processing the collected image data for determining variations in contrast of speckle patterns in the image data piece [0008]), the target area including living tissue (directing coherent illumination of a selected wavelength range onto one or more inspection spots of the subjects' body [0008]);
determining one or more transformation parameters of an image registration algorithm for registering the first speckle images with each other ([0014]-[0015] discloses “spot tracking” of relative locations of an illumination spot across images, as well as aligning the images, i.e. an image registration algorithm and transformation parameters; [0015] further discloses physical alignment/transformation parameters of the images; spot tracking module 6010, as disclosed in [0060] further discloses the processing of the images with respect to the illumination spot; Fig. 2 reproduced below with spot tracking module 610), the transformation parameters being based on a similarity measure of pixel values of at least one group of pixels in each image of a plurality of images of the at least one sequence of images, the images in the plurality of images being selected from the first speckle images or each said image of the plurality of images being associated with the first speckle images (discloses that pixel intensity is calculated for a sequence of images; [0062]-[0063] discloses a temporal contrast module, which groups together pixel values in regions/sub regions of each image; [0059]);
determining first speckle contrast images based on the first speckle images (determining contrast measure for each image data piece and collecting the contrast measures from a sequences of image data [0010]);
determining registered speckle contrast images by registering the first speckle contrast images based on the one or more transformation parameters and the image registration algorithm (determining contrast measure for each image data piece and collecting the contrast measures from a sequences of image data [0010]); and
computing a weighted average of the registered first speckle contrast images ([0014] and [0067] discloses determining weighted averages between one or more images).
Regarding claim 17, Califa teaches the computation module of claim 16,
wherein the at least one sequence of images comprises a sequence of second images, the second images being captured during exposure of the target area with second light, the second light having one or more second wavelengths ( two or more different wavelength within a selected wavelength range [0053]; second imaging unit [0054]; [0048] further discloses the light source obtaining various wavelengths [0053]-[0054] discloses capturing images at different wavelengths/with overlapping areas using two imaging units), wherein exposure of the target area to the second light is alternated with the exposure of the target area to the first light or is simultaneous with the exposure of the target area to the first light ([0054] discloses that the second imaging unit captures simultaneously as the first, with a different frame rate/larger area); and
the plurality of images is selected from the sequence of second images, each of the second images being associated with a first speckle image ([0054] discloses that the second imaging unit captures the area around the inspection region/same as the first).
Regarding claim 18, Califa teaches non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program or suite of computer programs comprising at least one software code portion (software or hardware modules [0056]), the software code portion, when run on a computer system(a computer unit or system including one or more processors, memory utility and input/output modules [0056]), being configured to cause the computer system to execute the method steps of claim 1 (claim 1 discussed above).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 6-7, 11, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Califa et al. (US 20220039679 A1, hereinafter "Califa") in view of Fukazawa et al .(US 20210321887 A1, hereinafter "Fukazawa").
Regarding claim 6, Califa teaches the method of claim 1, as discussed above. Califa, however, does not teach wherein the at least one group of pixels represent predetermined features in the plurality of images.
Fukazawa is analogous to the instant application as “Medical system, information processing apparatus, and information processing method” is disclosed (title).
Fukazawa teaches wherein the at least one group of pixels represent predetermined features in the plurality of images ([0046], [0081], [0253]-[0254] discloses use of pixels to discriminate between blood flow and non-blood flow areas in the image, i.e. predetermined features in the images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Califa to include wherein the at least one group of pixels represent predetermined features in the plurality of images, as taught by Fukazawa. Doing so would generate a satisfactory speckle contrast image even in the case where the image capturing target moves in the captured image in using the speckle imaging technology, as suggested by Fukazawa ([0006]).
Regarding claim 7, modified Califa teaches method of claim 6, as discussed above. Califa, however, does not teach filtering the plurality of images with a filter adapted to increase the probability that one said group of pixels represents a feature corresponding to an anatomical feature.
Fukazawa, however, teaches filtering the plurality of images with a filter adapted to increase the probability that one said group of pixels represents a feature corresponding to an anatomical feature ([0093] discloses filtering based off the correct speckle contrast value; [0108] discloses obtaining weights to correctly discriminate between blood flow and non-blood flow parts).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Califa to include filtering the plurality of images with a filter adapted to increase the probability that one said group of pixels represents a feature corresponding to an anatomical feature, as taught by Fukazawa. Doing so would generate a satisfactory speckle contrast image even in the case where the image capturing target moves in the captured image in using the speckle imaging technology, as suggested by Fukazawa ([0006]).
Regarding claim 11, modified Califa teaches method of claim 1, as discussed above. Califa, however, does not teach displaying a combined speckle contrast image or a derivative thereof.
Fukazawa is analogous to the instant application as “Medical system, information processing apparatus, and information processing method” is disclosed (title).
Fukazawa teaches displaying a combined speckle image ([0149] discloses capturing images across multiple colors/wavelengths; [0079] discloses displaying the combined/superimposed image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Califa to include a displaying a combined speckle image and/or a derivative thereof, as taught by Fukazawa. Doing so would generate a satisfactory speckle contrast image even in the case where the image capturing target moves in the captured image in using the speckle imaging technology, as suggested by Fukazawa ([0006]).
Regarding claim 14, Califa teaches a hardware module of claim 12, as discussed above. Califa, however, does not teach a display for displaying a combined speckle image and/or a derivative thereof.
Fukazawa is analogous to the instant application as “Medical system, information processing apparatus, and information processing method” is disclosed (title).
Fukazawa teaches a display for displaying a combined speckle image ([0149] discloses capturing images across multiple colors/wavelengths; [0079] discloses displaying the combined/superimposed image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Califa to include a display for displaying a combined speckle image and/or a derivative thereof, as taught by Fukazawa. Doing so would generate a satisfactory speckle contrast image even in the case where the image capturing target moves in the captured image in using the speckle imaging technology, as suggested by Fukazawa ([0006]).
Regarding claim 15, Califa teaches a medical imaging device comprising a hardware module of claim 12, as discussed above. Although Califa discloses a laser speckle contrast imaging device (laser speckle contrast analysis (LASCA) technique [0007]), Califa is silent regarding the device being selected from the group consisting of: endoscope, a laparoscope, a surgical robot, a [handheld] laser speckle contrast imaging device and an [open surgical] laser speckle contrast imaging system.
Fukazawa is analogous to the instant application as “Medical system, information processing apparatus, and information processing method” is disclosed (title).
Fukazawa teaches the device is an open surgical laser speckle contrast imaging system (FIG. 18 is a view illustrating an example of a schematic configuration of an endoscopic surgery system 5000 to which the technology according to the present disclosure can be applied [0121]; an open surgical laser speckle contrast imaging system is disclosed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Califa to include an open surgical laser speckle contrast imaging system, as taught by Fukazawa. Doing so would generate a satisfactory speckle contrast image even in the case where the image capturing target moves in the captured image in using the speckle imaging technology, as suggested by Fukazawa ([0006]).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Califa et al. (US 20220039679 A1, hereinafter "Califa") in view of Miyata (US 20200397269 A1) .
Regarding claim 8, Califa teaches method of claim 1, as discussed above.
Califa further teaches: determining a plurality of associated ones of said groups of pixels based on the similarity measure, each said group of pixels belonging to a different image from the plurality of images (The processor unit may divide the speckle region to two or more sub-regions and determine separate contrast measure for the different sub-regions. This provides a plurality of two or more time-contrast variation functions corresponding with the different sub-regions. Analysis of the different time-contrast variation functions and determining weighted average thereof may provide for determining the one or more selected parameters with improved signal to noise ratio. Further, due to mechanical vibrations in the environment, location of the illumination spot may change with respect to the inspection region. The present technique may utilize tracking of the relative locations of the illumination spot and inspection region to thereby identify similar sub-regions being illumination and maintain the sub-region time-contrast variation function for selected spots on the inspection region, even when the illumination spot shifts. The tracking may generally be based on image data associated with video data of the surrounding of the subject; [0015] Tracking of the relative location may be used for determining drift of the illumination spot with respect to the inspection region. Such drift may be associated with shift of sub-regions that can be corrected by following selected sub-regions on basis of the inspection region thereby compensating for shifts of the illumination spot).
Califa, however, does not teach: determining a plurality of displacement vectors based on positions of the groups of pixels relative to the respective images from the plurality of images, the displacement vectors representing motion of the target area relative to the image sensor; and determining the transformation parameters based on the plurality of displacement vectors.
Miyata is considered analogous to the instant application as “Image-capturing device and image processing method” is disclosed (title). Miyata teaches:
determining a plurality of displacement vectors based on positions of the groups of pixels relative to the respective images from the plurality of images, the displacement vectors representing motion of the target area relative to the image sensor ([0082]-[0084] disclose calculation of the position/magnitude of each pixel movement/shift, i.e. vector, which represents motion; [0087] discloses movement with respect to the image sensor) and
determining the transformation parameters based on the plurality of displacement vectors ([0070]-[0071] discusses correction positional relation while imaging based off the observed speckle pattern; [0085]-[0088] discloses a “fluctuation amplitude” calculation which is a result of the movement of the speckle pattern over time).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Califa to include determining a plurality of displacement vectors based on positions of the groups of pixels relative to the respective images from the plurality of images, the displacement vectors representing motion of the target area relative to the image sensor; and determining the transformation parameters based on the plurality of displacement vectors, as taught by Miyata. Doing so would can increase information to be acquired from the object, so that a narrowed or bleeding region of the blood vessel can be detected with less oversights, as suggested by Miyata ([0088]).
Regarding claim 19, Califa teaches method of claim 3, as discussed above. Califa, however, is silent regarding wherein the light of the at least second wavelength is coherent light of a predetermined second wavelength in a green or blue part of the electromagnetic spectrum.
Miyata is considered analogous to the instant application as “Image-capturing device and image processing method” is disclosed (title). Miyata teaches wherein the light of the at least second wavelength is coherent light of a predetermined second wavelength in a green or blue part of the electromagnetic spectrum (the light source device 100 includes a white light source 14 as an irradiation light source that emits irradiation light. As used herein, “white” light widely covers light containing at least two, more preferably all, of wavelength components in the red (R), yellow (Y), green (G), and blue (B) wavelength ranges…. The wavelength range of the B light is, for example, from 430 nm to 480 nm. The R, G, and B light do not need to be simultaneously emitted from the white light source 14. For example, if the R light, the G light, and the B light are successively emitted within a period of about 33 milliseconds [0052]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Califa to include wherein the light of the at least second wavelength is coherent light of a predetermined second wavelength in a green or blue part of the electromagnetic spectrum, as taught by Miyata. Doing so would can increase information to be acquired from the object, so that a narrowed or bleeding region of the blood vessel can be detected with less oversights, as suggested by Miyata ([0088]).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Califa et al. (US 20220039679 A1, hereinafter "Califa") in view of Presura et al. (US 20180110423 A1, hereinafter "Presura").
Regarding claim 10, Califa teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the target area comprises a perfused organ, and/or comprises one more blood vessels ([0048] at wavelength range selected to penetrate at least a few micrometers through human skin to thereby provide image data indicative of capillary blood flow; [0051] The first imaging unit 130 is preferably configured for collecting a sequence of images at selected sampling rate, where each image is collected within a selected exposure time, such that the sampling rate is sufficient for monitoring blood perfusion and heart rate of the subject and the exposure time is sufficiently short for filtering out mechanical vibrations from the environment) and/or lymphatic vessels.
Califa, however, does not teach the method further comprising: computing a perfusion intensity, based on a combined speckle image.
Presura is considered analogous to the instant application as “Optical laser speckle sensor for measuring a blood perfusion parameter” is disclosed. Presura teaches computing a perfusion intensity, based on a combined speckle image. (Therefore, it is possible to perform a correction of the motion artifacts on the basis of plural contrast values determined for different tissue depths [0067]; determining one motion-corrected value of the blood perfusion parameter based on the contrast values associated with the different tissue depths. [0030]; the optical sensor devices comprises an evaluation unit configured to determine separate contrast values for the light detection elements based on the captured light intensities and to determine one motion-corrected value of the blood perfusion parameter based on the contrast values associated with the different tissue depths [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Califa to include computing a perfusion intensity, based on a combined speckle image, as taught by Presura. Doing so would allow for a monitoring of a blood perfusion parameter of a user in a flexible way and in a manner which is convenient for the user, as suggest by Presura ([0007]).
Regarding claim 20, modified Califa teaches the method of claim 10, as discussed above. Califa further teaches wherein the perfused organ is perfused by blood ([0048] at wavelength range selected to penetrate at least a few micrometers through human skin to thereby provide image data indicative of capillary blood flow; [0051] The first imaging unit 130 is preferably configured for collecting a sequence of images at selected sampling rate, where each image is collected within a selected exposure time, such that the sampling rate is sufficient for monitoring blood perfusion and heart rate of the subject and the exposure time is sufficiently short for filtering out mechanical vibrations from the environment; [0063] such contrast variation is at least partially indicative of blood perfusion and accordingly cardiac activity of the subject) and/or lymph fluid.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection, applicant argument’s on pages 9-11 are premised upon the assertion that the claim is patent eligible as “…a limitation that can only practically be performed using a (generic) computer, or in a computer environment, is not a mental process”, as well the determining steps “at most, involve a judicial exception”, and that the mathematical steps do not recite an abstract idea. The applicant further argues “would still be patent eligible because it constitutes an improvement in existing technology, namely, laser speckle contrast imaging”. In response, the examiner asserts that the “determining…” steps as well as the computation steps can be practically be performed in the mind and/or with the with the aid of pen and paper, as noted in the rejection above and does not require the use of a generic computer. Regarding the arguments for “This solution is recited as a specific, ordered set of rules that improves an existing technological process (laser speckle contrast imaging)”, the examiner asserts that the claim language is directed towards capturing laser speckle images, and performing calculations using the pixel information from the images. The claims do not recite " "Components or methods, such as measurement devices or techniques, that generate new data" (MPEP 2106.0S(a) II, positive example vi), generating a new motion-compensated laser speckle contrast image. " as applicant asserts on page 10 of remarks. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., generating new data/generating a new motion-capture laser speckle contrast image) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection of claim 1, on pages 13-14 applicant argues that “Califa does not determine a speckle contrast image, but instead determines a time-contrast variation function… Califa does not carry out image registration using image transformations, and Califa does not determine speckle contrast images…”. In response to the argument regarding “First, Califa does not disclose the limitation "determining one or more transformation parameters of an image registration algorithm for registering the first speckle images with each other… There is no disclosure of transformation of the speckle image data. Par. [0015] furthermore describes physical (re)alignment of the illumination and/or imaging system, but this is distinct from image alignment”. In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Paragraphs [0007]-[0008] discloses that the imaging technique that is utilized is laser speckle contrast, and [0060]-[0061] explicitly disclose that speckle contrast from the image data is used in the image calculations. Paragraph [0015] of Califa discloses calculation of drift between images, i.e. the shift between the image data that was collected, and paragraph [0059] is relied upon to teach the limitation regarding similarity measure of pixel values in the image. The claim merely states that “the transformation parameters being based on a similarity measure of pixel values…” which is taught in the Califa reference above. The applicant further argues on page 14 that the secondary references do not teach “registering the speckle contrast images and then determining a weighted average of the registered speckle contrast images”, however, Califia is relied upon to teach these limitations. Accordingly, the argument is not persuasive and the rejection is maintained. Regarding the 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 rejections of the remaining claims. Applicant argument’s on pages 14-15 are that the claims are allowable for the same reasons as stated above. The examiner respectfully disagrees for the reasons stated above. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive, and the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NESHAT BASET whose telephone number is (571)272-5478. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-17:30 CST.
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, PASCAL M. BUI-PHO can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/N.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights