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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 07/27/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12, 14, 21-25, 27, 34, and 36 are pending.
Claims 27, 34, and 36 are withdrawn from prosecution.
Claims 1-2, 4-5, 9, 12, 14, 21-25 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 12, 14, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yodh, et al., US 20060063995 A1 in view of Kleiser, et al., US 20210219881 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Yodh teaches a device for estimating tissue metabolic rate of oxygen consumption (tMRO2) in a subject (abstract and [0038]), comprising:
an optical detector (100) [0073] configured for spatially resolved diffuse reflectance spectroscopy (srDRS) measurements ([0028]-[0029] and fig. 2), blood flow measurements [0008], and oxygenation measurements [0008], coupled with a plurality of light sources (200) without implementing fiber optics [0024],
wherein the srDRS measurements, the blood flow measurements, and the oxygenation measurements are combined to estimate the tMRO2 [0038].
Yodh does not teach wherein the optical detector (100) comprises an aperture (150) comprising a single slit having a straight and narrow shape.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Kleiser teaches a spectrophotometric apparatus for determining optical parameters in a scattering medium based on the measurement of attenuation of light propagating through said medium by diffusion (see abstract), the apparatus comprising an oximeter 1 including light sources 2, and detectors 3 provided with a slit aperture 13 according to [0104], thence describing the claimed optical detector (100) comprising an aperture (150) comprising a single slit having a straight and narrow shape. Also see [0053], [0055].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Yodh, wherein the optical detector (100) comprises an aperture (150) comprising a single slit having a straight and narrow shape, as taught by Kleiser, as such modification would limit the angles at which light is emitted/received by the respective source/detector, for obtaining optimum optical as well as electronic performance as well as a compact size of the apparatus [0059].
Regarding claim 4, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh further teaches wherein the optical detector (100) comprises a lens that enables a wider field of view but does not require an image to be in focus [0083].
Regarding claim 5, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh further teaches wherein the plurality of light sources (200) comprise coherent light sources, chip-based light sources, vertical-cavity surface-emitting lasers (VCSELs), light-emitting diodes (LEDs), or a combination thereof [0024].
Regarding claim 9, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh further teaches wherein the plurality of light sources (200) are at different wavelengths [0029].
Regarding claim 12, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh fails to teach wherein the aperture (150) is located in the front of the optical detector (100).
However, Kleiser further taches wherein the aperture (150) is located in the front of the optical detector (100).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Yodh, wherein the aperture (150) is located in the front of the optical detector (100), as taught by Kleiser, as such modification would limit the angles at which light is emitted/received by the respective source/detector, for obtaining optimum optical as well as electronic performance as well as a compact size of the apparatus [0059].
Regarding claim 21, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh further teaches wherein the optical detector (100) is further configured for examination of one or more clinical markers, measurements of metabolism, or a combination thereof [0038].
Regarding claim 22, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh further teaches wherein the optical detector (100) is further configured for measurements of deoxyhemoglobin, oxyhemoglobin, and/or metabolism [0038], [0075].
Regarding claim 23, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh fails to teach wherein the device is a wearable.
However, Kleiser further teaches wherein the device is a wearable [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Yodh, wherein the device is a wearable, as taught by Kleiser, as such modification would limit the angles at which light is emitted/received by the respective source/detector, for obtaining optimum optical as well as electronic performance as well as a compact size of the apparatus [0059].
Regarding claim 24, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh fails to teach wherein the device is miniaturized.
However, Kleiser further teaches wherein the device is miniaturized [0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Yodh, wherein the device is miniaturized, as taught by Kleiser, as such modification would limit the angles at which light is emitted/received by the respective source/detector, for obtaining optimum optical as well as electronic performance as well as a compact size of the apparatus [0059].
Regarding claim 25, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh fails to teach wherein the device is configured for mobile use.
However, Wiese further teaches wherein the device is miniaturized [0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Yodh, wherein the device is miniaturized, as taught by Kleiser, as such modification would limit the angles at which light is emitted/received by the respective source/detector, for obtaining optimum optical as well as electronic performance as well as a compact size of the apparatus [0059].
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yodh in view of Kleiser, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Liang, et al., CN 102914270 A.
Regarding claim 2, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh in view of Kleiser fails to teach wherein the aperture (150) provides point estimation of optical properties for the device.
However, Liang teaches “a method based on support vector machine regression crystal diameter measuring method, firstly using CCD camera collects the aperture image of the single crystal silicon growing process in the aperture image pre-processing to obtain the estimated sampling point, and then the standard model of the ellipse derived from one for support vector machine regression model, using the -SVR model of weight w and offset b in the model so as to determine the parameter of ellipse fitting”, see abstract, stating in [0006] “A crystal diameter measuring method based on support vector machine regression, firstly using CCD camera collected by the aperture image in single crystal silicon growing process, the aperture image pre-processing to obtain the sampling point estimation, then, a standard model of elliptical derived one epsilon-epsilon-SVR model for support vector machine regression”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Yodh, as modified by Kleiser, wherein the aperture (150) provides point estimation of optical properties for the device, to provide an accurate measure of the region of interest (see abstract) with a reasonable expectation of success as Nakaji also directs to improving optical based oxygenation measurements ([0014]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yodh in view of Kleiser, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lo, et al., US 20170227466 A1.
Regarding claim 14, Yodh in view of Kleiser teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Yodh in view of Kleiser fails to teach fails to teach wherein the single slit comprises dimensions of 2 to 12 mm long and .2 to 2.75 mm wide.
However, Lo teaches “a method of imaging a particle in a flow cytometer includes transmitting a light beam at a fluidic channel to illuminate a fluid sample containing particles to affect the light (e.g., scatter or emit) to be received by a pattern of apertures spatially arranged about the fluidic channel, in which the pattern of apertures includes a substrate structured to form a plurality of slits arranged on the substrate such that different portions of a particle flowing across the pattern of apertures will pass different slits at different times” [0032]. Lo further teaches wherein the aperture (150) is a slit with dimensions of about 2 to 12 mm long and .2 to 2.75 mm wide (“The illustration of the spatial filter depicts an engineered spatial filter design that has ten 100 ?m by 1 mm slits positioned apart in the way of one is immediately after another in both x-direction (transverse to the flow direction) and y-direction (longitudinal to the flow direction).” [0036]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Yodh as modified by Kleiser wherein the aperture (150) is a slit with dimensions of about 2 to 12 mm long and .2 to 2.75 mm wide, as taught by Schenkman, as such modification would allow for improved spatial resolution ([0028]) with a reasonable expectation of success as Nakaji also directs to improving optical based oxygenation measurements ([0014]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights