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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/06/2025 with respect to claims 17-21, 24, 28-29, 31, 33 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2025 with respect to the rejection of claims 25-27, 34-37, with respect to reference Wang, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are as follows.
“In order to more clearly distinguish the present invention of claims 25, 34 and 36 from the prior art on file, the claims 25, 34 and 36 have been amended to recite that the planar wavefront is for reducing motion artifacts due to translational movements of the handheld apparatus in a direction parallel to the planar wavefront, which may occur during the measurement”
Examiner respectfully disagrees that the amendment distinguish the present invention of claims form prior art. The amendments are recited as a result of the optical setup for planar wavefront, using the light source and imaging device. There is no other elements claimed and hence no structural differentiation from the apparatus in Wang, such that the claimed apparatus can function in another way different from the apparatus in Wang. Examiner finds that limitation is an inherent characteristic (result) of the prior art structure, since the components create the same planar wavefront using the light source. See MPEP 2114.I. that is, if the claimed components provide this result, the elements in Wang will also provide this result.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 29, 31 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Winchester Jr [US 7113817 B1].
As per claim 17, Winchester Jr teaches a handheld laser-based perfusion imaging apparatus comprising a light source and an imaging device (Winchester Jr Fig 7 items 13, 23) which are arranged in a fixed orientation to each other in said apparatus (Winchester Jr Fig 7 is an experimental setup and requires some fixed orientation with each other),
wherein the light source is configured for projecting a beam of coherent light onto a measurement field at a distance spaced apart from the apparatus (Winchester Jr item 13, Col 3 lines 41-43 “Laser speckle is a random phenomenon that can only be described statistically by first considering a plane illuminated by a coherent electromagnetic wave…”), and
the imaging device is configured for recording intensity maps of the measurement field (Winchester Jr items 21, 23, Col 8 lines 15-30),
wherein the light source and the imaging device are arranged facing the same side of the measurement field (Winchester Jr Fig 7), and
wherein the light source comprises one or more optical components arranged for configuring the beam of coherent light so as to comprise a spherical wavefront at the measurement field, wherein the wavefront is convex towards the measurement field (Winchester Jr Fig 7 beam16, this divergent beam will have a spherical wavefront, with convex wavefront shape as described by the applicant all throughout the spec. For e.g. see discussion with respect to Figs 2 and 3).
As per claims 29, 31, are directed to method of claim 17 and are rejected for same reasons as above. Winchester Jr further teaches recording time integrated speckle intensity maps (Winchester Jr Col 3-4, equations 1-7) and recording a series of speckle images at a frame rate and/or exposure times (Winchester Jr Col 9 lines 40-50) in order to obtain a series of substantially non-blurred speckle images (Winchester Jr Col 8 lines 17-30, shutter control and processing so that human eye can view, implying it is substantially non-blurred).
Claims 25-26, 34, 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) and 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Wang [US 20140357990 A1].
As per claim 25, Wang teaches a handheld Laser Speckle Contrast Imaging (LSCI) apparatus or Laser Doppler Perfusion Imaging (LDPI) apparatus comprising a light source and an imaging device which are arranged in a fixed orientation to each other in said apparatus (Wang Fig 3, LD and camera experimental setup implies some fixed orientation),
wherein the light source is configured for projecting a beam of coherent light onto a measurement field at a distance spaced apart from the apparatus (Wang Fig 3, ¶0021),
the imaging device is configured for recording the speckle intensity maps of the measurement field (Wang Fig 1, steps 115-120, ¶0037-¶0038), wherein the light source and the imaging device are arranged facing the same side of the measurement field (Wang Fig 3), and
wherein the light source is configured to provide a planar wavefront, at least at the measurement field (Wang Fig 3, ¶0043 “A collimated beam from a diode laser with a wavelength of λ=780 nm is expanded and then uniformly illuminates the sample at an incident angle of .about.60.degree. from the tissue normal direction.” This setup is similar to applicant Fig 5, and hence provides similar planar wavefront as claimed),
for reducing motion artifacts due to translational movements of the handheld apparatus in a direction parallel to the planar wavefront, which may occur during; the measurement (These limitations are recited as a result of the optical setup for planar wavefront. There is no structural differentiation from the apparatus in Wang. Examiner finds that limitation is an inherent characteristic (result) of the prior art structure, since the components create the same planar wavefront using the light source. See MPEP 2114.I).
As per claim 26, Wang further teaches wherein the one or more further optical components comprises collimating lenses and/or a beam expander (Wang Fig 3).
As per claims 34, 36, they have limitations similar to claim 25 and are rejected for same reasons as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 18, 24, 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winchester Jr as applied to claims 17, 31 above, and further in view of Lertsakdadet [Handheld motion stabilized laser speckle imaging, Vol. 10, No. 10 / 1 October 2019 / Biomedical Optics Express].
As per claims 18, 24, 33 Winchester Jr does not expressly teach wherein the one or more optical components are configured to position a center of the spherical wavefront at or near a pivot point of said handheld laser-based perfusion imaging apparatus and/or a pivot point of a user of said handheld laser-based perfusion imaging apparatus, or wherein the apparatus comprises a gimbal mount with a handle, or wherein at least the light source and the imaging device are pivotally isolated from the handle.
Lertsakdadet in a similar field teaches wherein the one or more optical components are configured to position a center of the spherical wavefront at or near a pivot point of said handheld laser-based perfusion imaging apparatus and/or a pivot point of a user of said handheld laser-based perfusion imaging apparatus (Such a configuration as in Lertsakdadet Fig 2 will have a wavefront near the gimbal / pivot point. Here the term “near” is interpreted to mean somewhere in the vicinity of the gimbal),
wherein the apparatus comprises a gimbal mount with a handle (Lertsakdadet Fig 2, handheld implies a handle), wherein at least the light source and the imaging device are pivotally isolated from the handle (Lertsakdadet page 5151 “we propose use of a handheld gimbal stabilizer (HGS) to further reduce motion artifact associated with data acquired in a handheld manner. An HGS is commonly used in video recording to reduce vibrations and shakiness when holding cameras. It utilizes motors to account for motion on multiple axes, and a 3-axis HGS can ensure the motion of the camera remains independent of the user’, Motion correction around the 3-axis implies some kind of pivotal isolation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Winchester Jr by integrating mounting arrangement and stabilization so as to implement a portable handheld blood flow imaging with motion stabilization (Lertsakdadet page 5151).
Claims 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winchester Jr as applied to claim 17 above and further in view of Villeneuve [US 5825792 A].
As per claim 19, Winchester Jr does not expressly teach wherein the one or more optical components comprises a single mode optical fibre, which is configured for emitting a diverging light beam.
Villeneuve, in a general field of laser emission and control teaches wherein the one or more optical components comprises a single mode optical fibre, which is configured for emitting a diverging light beam (Villeneuve Col 5 lines 22-27 “The assembly comprises a divergent source 12 of laser emission, that is, a semiconductor laser facet 14 of a DFB laser, as shown, or alternatively an output facet of a single mode fibre (SMF).”).
As per MPEP section 2143.1, example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (B) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Wang, by substituting an SMF, for generating a divergent beam, in Winchester Jr. The substituted elements would have functioned in similar way to obtain the predictable results of generating divergent or spherical waves.
Claim 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winchester Jr as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of AAPA [Applicant Admitted Prior Art, Spec. page 6 lines 5-10].
As per claim 20, Winchester Jr does not expressly teach wherein the one or more optical components comprises a focussing lens and a pinhole aperture arranged at a position where the focussing lens focusses the beam of coherent light.
AAPA teaches a focussing lens and a pinhole aperture arranged at a position where the focussing lens focusses the beam of coherent light (AAPA page 6 lines 5-10 “assemblies comprising a focussing lens and a pinhole aperture, are known in the art.”).
As per MPEP section 2143.1, example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (B) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Wang, by substituting a focusing lens / pinhole arrangement, as in AAPA, for generating a divergent beam, in Winchester Jr. The substituted elements would have functioned in similar way to obtain the predictable results of generating divergent or spherical waves.
Claim 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Winchester Jr as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of Bass [US 20020015218 A1]
As per claim 21, Winchester Jr does not expressly teach wherein the light source is configured to provide a collimated light beam and wherein the one or more optical components comprises a lens, for converting the substantially collimated light beam in a diverging light beam with a spherical wavefront at the measuring field.
Bass, in a related field of illumination systems, teaches wherein the light source is configured to provide a collimated light beam and wherein the one or more optical components comprises a lens, for converting the substantially collimated light beam in a diverging light beam with a spherical wavefront at the measuring field (Bass Fig 1, ¶0029).
As per MPEP section 2143.1, example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include (B) simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Wang, by substituting lens arrangement as in Bass, for generating a divergent beam, in Winchester Jr. The substituted elements would have functioned in similar way to obtain the predictable results of generating divergent or spherical waves.
Claims 27, 35, 37 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 25, 34, 36 above, and further in view of Lertsakdadet.
As per claims 27, 35, 37 Wang does not expressly teach wherein the apparatus comprises a gimbal mount with a handle, wherein at least the light source and the imaging device are pivotally isolated from the handle.
Lertsakdadet in a similar field teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a gimbal mount with a handle (Lertsakdadet Fig 2, handheld implies a handle), wherein at least the light source and the imaging device are pivotally isolated from the handle (Lertsakdadet page 5151 “we propose use of a handheld gimbal stabilizer (HGS) to further reduce motion artifact associated with data acquired in a handheld manner. An HGS is commonly used in video recording to reduce vibrations and shakiness when holding cameras. It utilizes motors to account for motion on multiple axes, and a 3-axis HGS can ensure the motion of the camera remains independent of the user’, Motion correction around the 3-axis implies some kind of pivotal isolation).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Wang by integrating mounting arrangement and stabilization so as to implement a portable handheld blood flow imaging with motion stabilization (Lertsakdadet page 5151).
Claim 28 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang as applied to claims 25, above, and further in view of Mannoh [US 20220007997 A1].
As per claim 28, Wang does not expressly teach wherein the apparatus comprises one or more targeting light sources which are configured to project one or more targeting light beams onto the measurement field.
Mannoh in a related filed of laser speckle contrast imaging teaches wherein the apparatus comprises one or more targeting light sources which are configured to project one or more targeting light beams onto the measurement field (Mannoh Fig 2G item 170, ¶0075).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Wang by integrating laser 170 as in Mannoh so as to guide a surgeon in positioning the imaging head so that the target of interest in roughly in the center of the field of view (Mannoh ¶0075).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/Oommen Jacob/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797